L.FRANKLIN  GRUBER 


RELI< 


FEB  14  1918 


BL    225     .G8    1918 

Gruber,  L.  Franklin  1870 

19A1. 

Creation  ex  nihilo 


■•— ■   I   Nw-    ( 


Grru 


FEB  14  1911 


.•■^ 


/?p 


CREATION  EX  NIHILO 


THE  PHYSICAL  UNIVERSE 
A  FINITE  AND  TEMPORAL  ENTITY 


BY 


L.  FRANKLIN  GRUBER 


With  a  Foreword  by 
G.  FREDERICK  WRIGHT,  LL.D.,  F.G.S.A. 


BOSTON 

THE  GORHAM  PRESS 

MCMXVIII 


COPYKIGHT,   I918,   BY  L.   FrAITKLIN  GrUBER 


All  Rights  Reserved 


Made  in  the  United  States  of  America 


The  Gorham  Press,  Boston,  U.  S.  A. 


FOREWORD 


If  the  men  of  science  could  distinguish  between  their  legiti- 
mate scientific  conclusions  and  their  metaphysical  speculations, 
and  if  Christian  apologists  were  less  ready  than  some  of  them 
are  to  set  limits  to  the  realm  of  secondary  causes,  Science  and 
Religion  would  have  no  difficulty  in  lying  down  together  without 
either  being  incorporated  in  the  other.  Professor  Asa  Gray 
occupied  a  position  in  the  scientific  world  scarcely  second  to  any 
other  authority.  Yet  he  had  no  difficulty  in  accepting,  on  the 
one  hand,  the  Nicene  Creed,  and,  on  the  other,  the  Darwinian 
theory  of  the  origin  of  species  through  natural  selection.  But 
this  did  not  interfere  with  his  implicit  belief  of  a  pervasive  design 
in  nature.  One  of  his  latest  publications  was  entitled  "Dar- 
winian Teleology,"  in  which  he  showed  conclusively  that,  how- 
ever much  the  Darwinian  theory  might  extend  the  action  of 
natural  causes,  it  could  not  supersede  the  necessity  of  a  design- 
ing mind  to  set  those  causes  in  operation,  and  to  direct  their 
course.  The  greater  and  more  complicated  the  machinery  to 
produce  definite  results,  the  greater  and  more  complicated  is  the 
design,  calling  for  a  more  exalted  conception  of  the  designer. 
A  book  printed  by  the  linotype  process  involves  even  more  evi- 
dence of  design  than  one  printed  from  separate  type  set  up  by 
hand. 

The  men  of  science  properly  deal  only  with  secondary  causes, 
from  observation  of  which  they  draw  conclusions  of  more  or 
less  probability  with  reference  to  conditions  both  past  and  future. 
Their  investigations  never  lead  them  to  ultimate  facts.  It  is 
still  as  true  as  ever  that,  however  much  you  may  lengthen  the 
chain  of  natural  causes,  you  cannot  reach  the  ultimate  link  that 
fastens  it  to  its  permanent  support. 

With  regard  to  the  ultimate  source  of  the  universe  of  sec- 
ondary causes,  only  three  suppositions  are  possible :  ( i )  that  the 
self-existent  eternal  cause  was  spiritual  and  personal;  (2)  that 
it  was  material;  and  (3)  that  both  spiritual  and  material 
essences  were  self-existent  and  eternal.  The  man  of  science  who 
assumes  that  the  self-existent  cause  of  all  things  was  material, 


2  Foreword 

instead  of  simplifying  the  mystery  of  existence  has  gratuitously 
multiplied  it ;  for,  out  of  purely  material  forces,  he  must  develop 
personality  and  design — qualities  that  do  not  inhere  in  material 
particles  and  forces.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  assumes  the 
self-existence  of  both  spiritual  and  material  essences,  he  has 
made  a  gratuitous  supposition  which  makes  his  mystery  three- 
fold ;  for  it  involves  the  mystery  of  the  union  of  the  two  inde- 
pendent, self-existent,  ultimate  causes.  Whereas  the  theist  uni- 
fies the  mystery  (which  is  a  scientific  process),  and  finds  in  sec- 
ondary causes  (which  on  examination  seem  to  be  more  and 
more  spiritual)  the  handiwork  of  the  Creator — too  complicated, 
indeed,  for  us  to  fully  understand,  but  whose  nature  can  be  easily 
apprehended  by  faith.  In  these  secondary  causes  we  can  clearly 
"find  God,"  though  we  cannot  by  any  means  "find  Him  out." 

It  is  gratifying  in  these  times  of  ephemeral  publications  to  get 
hold  of  a  treatise  which  goes  to  the  bottom  of  the  matter, 
which  is  not  content  with  mere  generalities  but  ferrets  out  all 
the  ambiguities,  fallacies,  and  non-sequiturs  of  atheism,  material- 
ism, monism,  and  agnosticism  and  brings  them  to  the  test  of 
the  most  recent  and  most  reasonable  scientific  conceptions  of  the 
universe.  The  author  is  specially  strong  in  the  use  of  the  facts 
which  demonstrate  the  finite  and  temporal  character  of  the 
universe  and  the  evidences  of  design  apparent  both  in  organic 
and  inorganic  nature.  The  work  displays  profound  and  most 
complete  knowledge  of  the  latest  theories  of  astronomy,  chem- 
istry, physics,  and  biology. 

We  have  followed  with  greatest  'interest  the  argument  of 
Dr.  Gruber  in  the  present  volume,  and  can  most  highly  com- 
mend it  for  its  comprehensiveness,  and  for  the  skill  which  is 
shown  in  stating  the  arguments  for  Theism,  and  in  answering 
the  supposed  objections  which  have  been  raised  by  modern 
scientific  discoveries.  The  volume  commends  itself  equally  to 
theologians  and  to  men  of  science,  and  if  read  will  do  much  to 
bring  these  classes  together  on  a  plane  where  they  can  reason 
together  without  animosity  and  work  together  in  the  promotion 
of  the  common  ends  of  science  and  religion. 

G.  Frederick  Wright. 
Oberliuj  Ohio, 
July  2$,  1917 


CONTENTS 

chapter  page 

Foreword ^ 

Introduction 9 

I  Theories  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Universe  .        .        .        .15 

I  Several  Speculative  Theories  Briefly  Stated          .         .       15 
II  Scriptural  Idea  of  Creation  Ex  Nihilo — A  Transcen- 
dental One 19 

1  Man's  Limitations  as  to  the  Conception  of  Such 

an  Idea 19 

2  Man's  Limitations  as  to  the  Expression  of  Such  an 

Idea 24 

II  Materialism's  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate    .      28 

I  As  to  Inorganic  Nature >         .28 

1  The    Reasoning    or    Method    and    the    Spirit    of 

Materialism  Anti-Theistic 29 

2  The    Premises    of    Materialism    Matters    of    In- 

definite Unfounded  Scientific  Faith     ...       32 
II  As  to  Organic  Nature •      35 

1  According  to  Materialism,  Life  and  Mind  Only- 

Forms  or  Results  of  Energy        ....       36 

2  A  Life-Pervaded  Organism  Essentially  Different 

from  an  Inanimate  Crystallization     .         .         .       38 

3  The   Supposed   Cosmozoic  Origin  of  Terrestrial 

Life  Examined .42 

4  The  Cosmozoic  Hypothesis  Inadequate  to  Explain 

Life's  Ultimate  Origin '45 

5  The  Theory  of  Spontaneous  Generation  Examined 

and  Found  Inadequate 47 

6  The  Theory  of  Nature  as  a  Living  Organism  In- 

adequate to  Account  for  Life       ....       50 

7  Materialism's  Necessary  Fatalism  Fatal  to  Itself       52 

III  Three  Postulates  as  to  a  First  and  Necessarily  Eternal 

Existence 55 

I  Postulate  of  Eternal  Co-Existence  of  Spirit  and  Mat- 
ter Untenable 55 

II  Postulate  of  Eternal  Existence  of  Matter  Alone  Un- 

tenable         56 

1  This  Postulate  Implies  a  Contradictory  Multiplic- 

ity of  First  Causes 59 

2  This  Postulate  Implies  the  Impossibility  that  All 

Energy,  Life  and  Mind  Have  Sprung  from 
Matter 61 

A  Arguments    for    Eternity    of   Matter  Equally 

Valid  for  Eternity  of  Life  and  Mind    .         .       62 

B  More  than  Matter  in  the  Universe    ...      64 

3 


4  Contents 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

C  Matter  an  Inadequate  Cause  to  Produce  Life 

and  Mind 65 

D  Life    and    Mind    Necessarily    from    an    Im- 
material  Supernatural,   or  Spiritual,    Source       67 
3  This  Postulate  Implies  that  the  Physical  Universe 

Is  Infinite,  Which  Is  Contrary  to  Fact       .         .       69 
III  Postulate  of  Eternal  Existence  of  Spirit  Alone  Tenable 

and  True   .........       70 

IV  The  Physical  Universe  Finite  and  Temporal  and  There- 
fore A  Creature — Evidence  from  Dependence      .        .      75 

I  Evidence    from    Apparently    Simultaneous    or    Syn- 

chronous   Dependence,    Proving    an    Independent 
and  Absolute  Upholder 77 

1  No  Series  of  Supports  and  Dependences  Infinite    .       78 

2  Action  of  Gravitation  an  Evidence  of  Finiteness 

and  Dependence  .......       79 

II  Evidence  from  Successive  or  Chronological  Depend- 
ence, Necessitating  an  Uncaused  Eternal  Origina- 
tor      .         . 80 

1  The  Law  Governing  Secondary  Causes  Illustrated       8i 

2  All   Series  of  Secondary  Causes  Finite,  Leading 

Up  to  an  Infinite  First  Cause      ....       83 

3  The   Existence    of.  One   Absolute    First   Cause    a 

Necessary  Postulate  of  Reason    ....       84 

III  Some  Important  and  Necessary  Deductions  as  to  the 

First  Cause 87 

1  The  Absolute,  Partially  Knowable,   First  Cause 

One,  Continually  Sustaining  All  Things    .         .       88 

2  Whatever  the  Theory  of  Creation,   Its   Cause    a 

Supreme  Personality    ......       90 

3  Summary  of  Conclusions  as  to  the  First  Cause  of 

All  Things 9* 

IV  Several   Objections   Answered 93 

V  The  Physical  Universe  Finite  and  Temporal,  and  There- 
fore A  Creature — Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic 

Whole 100 

I  Great  Thinkers  on  the  Extent  of  the  Universe    .         .     loi 

II  The  Physical  Universe,  Regarded  as  a  Unitary  Sys- 

tem, Necessarily  Finite 103 

III  Evidence   of   Finiteness   in   the   General    Distribution 

and  Apparent  Number  of  the  Stars         .         .         .     no 

IV  Evidence  of  Finiteness  in  the  Stellar  Motions      .         .     n8 
V  Evidence  of  Finiteness  in  the  Aggregate  Light  of  the 

Stars 126 

1  Extent  of   Universe   for   Number  of   Stars   to   be 

Equal    to    Number    of    Star    Cross-Sections    in 
Surface  of  Bounding  Sphere         ....     128 

2  Approximate  Extent  of  Universe  for  Stars  (Den- 

sity as  in  Known  Universe),  without  Occulta- 
tions,  Completely  to  Cover  Celestial  Sphere      .     136 


Contents  5 

PAGE 
CHAPTER  ^, 

3  No  Infinite  Extent  of  Universe  Thus  Necessary 

under   Any   Condition   of   Distribution       .         .     i39 

4  Actual    and   Comparative   Amount  of  Light  Re- 

ceived from  All  the  Stars  .         .         •         •         -141 

5  Objection   from   Hypothetical   Light  Interference 

Answered      .         •         •         *.       '.      /         i:   c   *     ^^^ 
VI  The  Aggregation   of  Any  Indefinite  Number  ot   bo- 
Called  Universes  Also  Finite  .        .         •         •         •     ^4"° 

VII  The  Aggregate  Matter  of  the   Universe  Necessarily 

VIII  The  Extent  of '  the  Containing  Space  of  the  Universe     160 

VI  Evidence  from  the  Physically  Temporal  Nature  of  the 

Universe  that  it  Had  a  Beginning  and  Therefore 
that  it  Was  Created        .        •        •        *      ,.•        *        *     J^o 

I  A  Universal  Paralysis  in  Nature  Impending     .         .168 

1  Apparent  Dissipation  of  Energy  and  Its  Inevit- 

able Result ,      ;nu     •        ; 

2  This  Conclusion  Not  Altered  by  the  Theory  ot 

Stellar  Consolidations -p    *     ''^^ 

3  The    Law    of   the    Conservation    of   Energy   Ex- 

amined         '  r  T-'         '     ^^^ 

4  The  Theory  of   an  Infinite   Quantity  of  Energy 

Considered ,*     n '         '     ^ 

II  A  Beginning  in  the  Past  Evident  from  the  Present 
Operations  of   Nature's  Laws    .         "        /        ; 

1  Evolution  Must  Necessarily  Imply  a  Beginning  of 

Its  Operation •         .180 

2  The  Theory  of  Repeating  or  Successive  Universes 

Inadequate »,*,.*      u  ' 

3  Our    Conclusion    Not    Changed    by    Making    the 

Ether  the  Final  Realm  of  Energy      .        .        .186 

VII  Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  Itself  that  the 

Physical  Universe  Is  a  Temporal  Entity      .        .        .189 
I  The  Atomic  or  Particle  Theory  of  Matter  .        .        .192 

II  The    Centre-of-Force   Theory   of   Matter     .         .         .     i95 

III  The  Vortex-Atom  Theory  of  Matter    .         .         •         •     I97 

IV  The  Electrical  Theory  of  Matter 200 

1  Steps  in  the  Discovery  of  Radium  .         .         .         .200 

2  The  Various  Rays  of  Radium  .        .         •        .202 

3  Radioactivity    Due    to    Disintegration    of  _  Atoms, 

Successive    Disintegrations    Resulting    in    Dif- 
ferent Substances  .         .         •         •      .  •         •     2°4- 

4  Disintegration  or  Devolution  Probably  Universal 

in  Nature      .        .        •         •       ,*    ,    *    ti  •        •     ^7 

5  The    Corpuscle    or    Electron    and    the    Ultimate 

Nature  of  Matter 2°9 

6  The  Positive  Electrical  Element  in  the  Atom      .    211 

7  The  Universe  Necessarily  Temporal  According  to 

This  Theory  of  Matter      .        »        .        ^        .213 


6         •  Contents 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

V  The  Ether  Theory  of  Matter ziS 

1  The  More  Generally  Accepted  Theory  as  to  the 

Nature  of  the  Ether 217 

2  The    Ether    and    So-Called    Ponderable    Matter 

According   to    This  Theory         ....     218 

3  The  Material  Universe  Temporal  upon  the  Basis 

of  This  Theory  of  the  Ether       ....     220 

4  Theory  Making  the  Ether  the  Only,  or  at  Least 

the   Denser,  Materiality       .....     221 

5  The  Physical  Universe  Temporal  as  to  Both  Its 

Matter  and  Its  Ether 223 

6  The  Ether  and  Energy — Monism's  Creative  Di- 

vinity      225 

7  The  Inevitable  Conclusion  from  the  Ether  Theory 

of  Matter 229 

VI  Conclusion    in    Summary:    The    Universe    Temporal 

According  to  All  These  Theories  of  Matter  .        .     230 

VIII  Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature,  Necessarily  Implying 

ITS  Creation  in  Time  by  a  Designing  Cause  or  Creator    233 
I  The  Objection  against  the  Idea  of  Design  in  Nature 

Answered .        .     235 

II  Design  Manifest  in  Every  Living  Organism         .         .     239 

III  Design  Manifest  in  Every  Part  and  Every  Law  of  In- 

organic Nature 242 

1  The  Constitutive  Particles  of  Cosmic  Nature  Like 

Manufactured  Articles  .....     242 

2  Evidence  of  Design  in  Chemical  Union  and  the 

"Periodic  Law" 246 

3  Everything  Apparently  in  Ceaseless  Motion  Ac- 

cording to  Fixed  Laws  .....     250 

4  Atoms    Themselves    like    Purposeful    Miniature 

Stellar  Systems  of  the  Infinitesimal  Universe    .     252 

5  The  Vast  Energy  in  the  Universe  an  Unmistak- 

able Evidence  of  Purjjose    .....     259 

6  Design  in  Every  Vibration  from  an  Object  Per- 

ceived to  the  Perceiving  Being  ....     263 

IV  General    Adaptations    and   Provisions   in    Nature    as 

Evidences  of  Design 266 

V  Not  Chance,  but  Law  Reigns — The  Modus  Operandi 

of  an  Intelligent  Personality 269 

VI  The  Apparent  Purpose  of  Creation      ....    274 

IX  Testimony  of  the  Scriptures  as  to  Creation  in  Accord 

WITH  THE  Evidence  from  Nature 277 

I  Direct   Testimony    of   the    Scriptures    that   the    Uni- 
verse  Is   God-Created     ......     279 

II  Two  Fundamental  Postulates  or  Axiomatic  Truths  of 

the  Scriptures 280 

III  The  Three  Absolute  Creations  of  the  Scriptures  .        .    283 

IV  The  Evident  Conclusion 285 


Contents  7 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

X  Conclusion  :  No  Real  Conflict  between  True  Science  and 

Revelation 287 

I  Their  Spheres  Totally  Different   .         .         .         .         .287 
II  Physical    Science    Not   Directly    Concerned    with    the 

Origin  of  Nature .  292 

III  The   Apparent   Conflict   Due   to    Unproved   Premises 

and  Unwarranted  Conclusions         ....  294 

IV  True  Science  and  Philosophy  as  Witnesses  for  Reve- 

lation            297 

V  A  Place  for  Faith  in  Science,  as  Well  as  in  Religion  298 
VI  Nature  and  Revelation  United  in  Testifying  to  Their 

Common  Origin 301 

Index 305 


mTRODUCTION 

To  the  thoughtful  mind  the  questions,  Whence?  What?  Why? 
and  Whither?  spontaneously  suggest  themselves  on  every  side. 
The  subjects  of  the  origin,  being,  purpose  and  destiny  of  man 
and  nature,  have  therefore  in  all  ages  occupied  the  minds  of 
men.  Indeed  all  philosophy  is  an  attempt  to  answer  these 
great  questions.  The  first  of  them,  that  of  the  whence,  or  of 
origin,  lies  back  of  the  other  three  and  in  a  sense  involves  them. 
It  constitutes  the  subject  to  be  considered  in  this  book. 

IMPORTANCE    OF   THE    SUBJECT 

Has  the  universe  existed  from  eternity,  or  was  it,  even  as  to 
its  material  or  substance,  created  by  a  Divinity  in  time,  or  at 
time's  beginning?  This  is  the  real  question.  To  one  who  has 
arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  universe  has  existed  from 
eternity,  there  is  but  a  step  to  every  possible  negation,  from 
the  denial  of  a  miracle  to  confirmed  atheism.  To  one  who  has 
become  convinced  that  it  was  created,  even  as  to  its  material 
or  substance,  by  the  Christian's  God,  everything  else,  from  the 
simplest  miracle  to  the  crowning  miracle  of  the  Incarnation  of 
the  Son  of  God,  is  as  nothing  for  faith  to  grasp  and  even  for 
reason  to  accept. 

If  a  miracle  be  defined  as  an  event  in  nature  that  cannot 
be  explained  by  the  ordinary  laws  of  nature,  then  the  estab- 
lishing of  the  fact  of  the  creation  of  the  universe,  ex  nihilo  or 
out  of  nothing — as  this  event  must  have  antedated  existing 
nature  and  therefore  nature's  laws — should  be  of  supreme  im- 
portance to  both  faith  and  reason.  By  the  very  definition  of  a 
miracle,  such  a  creation  must  have  been  the  great  primal  or 
fundamental  miracle,  transcending  and  indeed  involving  all 
accredited  miracles  in  created  nature. 

Thus,  the  fact  of  the  creation  of  the  universe  ex  nihilo  being 
accepted,  that  of  all  other  Biblical  miracles  becomes  not  only 

9 


lO  Introduction 

possible  to  faith,  but  also  acceptable  to  reason.  Between  such 
creation  and  its  perhaps  even  more  wonderful  counterpart,  the 
Incarnation,  all  other  miracles,  in  addition  to  their  immediate 
purpose,  should  serve  also  as  striking  illustrations  of  continued 
Divine  immanence. 

Hence,  as  this  subject  has  often  stood  out  as  a  chief  point 
or  occasion  of  difference  between  what  might  in  a  general  way 
be  called  the  Academy  and  the  Church,  or  supposedly  between 
nature  and  accredited  Revelation,  it  is  one  of  supreme  im- 
portance to  both  science  and  religion. 

But  even  apart  from  this  scientific  and  religious,  or  scien- 
tifico-religious,  importance  of  the  subject,  it  has  also  a  more 
purely  philosophic  side,  as  we  have  indicated  in  our  intro- 
ductory paragraph,  that  appeals  to  every  searcher  after  truth 
and  every  thoughtful  reader.  Therefore,  even  from  the  purely 
intellectual — or  we  might  say,  scientifico-philosophic — side,  the 
subject  is  one  of  absorbing  interest. 

SCOPE    AND   TREATMENT 

It  does  not  come  within  the  scope  of  this  work  to  discuss  the 
particular  vianner  of  creation  by  a  Deity,  whether  it  was  in- 
stantaneously or  gradually,  virtually  by  one  act  or  by  a  long 
series  of  repeated  acts,  wholly  directly  or  chiefly  through  sec- 
ondary causes.  Nor  do  the  creative  days  of  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis  enter  into  our  consideration.  The  chief  purpose  of 
this  work  is  to  prove  that  the  universe  of  matter  and  its  cor- 
relate energy,  together  with  life,  must  necessarily  have  been 
created  out  of  iiothing  by  a  supreme  or  absolute  Personality. 
And  it  is,  therefore,  the  fact,  not  the  manner  nor  the  time,  of 
that  primal  creation  that  here  chiefly  concerns  us. 

Nor  do  the  Christian  Scriptures  enter  much  into  our  dis- 
cussion, as  we  are  addressing  ourselves  more  especially  to  that 
apparently  growing  class  of  people  who  will  not  accept  the 
Scriptures  by  themselves  as  credible  evidence.  In  reasoning  with 
such  upon  such  a  subject,  it  is  only  fair  to  them  that  we  should 
waive,  or  at  least  withhold,  the  evidence  which  to  them  is  not 
acceptable.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  meet  them  upon  the 
basis  of  their  own  premises  of  reasoning.  And,  indeed,  as  the 
very  intellectual  atmosphere  is  becoming  more  and  more  scien- 
tific, it  is  not  only  the  professional  men  of  science,  but  also 


Introduction  1 1 

those  with  an  acquired  scientific  attitude,  that  look  for  scien- 
tific evidence.  Hence,  it  is  this  evidence  for  a  creation  ex 
nihilo  by  a  transcendent  Deity,  not  that  of  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures, that  we  are  endeavoring  to  present.  We  are  here  placing 
science^  not  Scripture,  upon  the  witness  stand.  And,  even  much 
less  so  are  we  in  this  work  setting  forth  or  defending  the  de- 
tailed Christian  facts  of  the  Scriptures,  as  a  development  of  the 
more  specifically  Christian  evidences.  The  setting  forth  of 
these  facts  in  the  light  of  all  the  evidence  of  present  scholar- 
ship, requires  a  separate  volume  and  a  different  method  of 
treatment. 

And  yet,  after  scientifically  establishing,  from  the  evidence 
from  nature  itself,  the  fact  of  a  creation  ex  nihilo,  by  a  su- 
preme Deity,  it  is  also  only  fair  to  the  Christian  view-point  to 
show  that  the  evidence  of  the  Christian  Scriptures  matches  this 
evidence  from  nature.  This  is  rather  the  reverse  of  the  usual 
method  of  approaching  the  scientific  searcher  after  truth  or  the 
honest  doubter,  but  it  should  need  no  argument  to  prove 
it  to  be  the  only  proper  method.  An  unscientific  Christian — if 
we  might  use  such  terminology — would  have  a  right  to  expect 
to  be  convinced,  if  conviction  were  attempted,  from  his  own 
view-point,  that  a  certain  scientific  fact  is  not  in  conflict  with 
Revelation.  So  a  physical  scientist — or  an  individual  with  a 
scientific  attitude  toward  truth — who  has  honest  doubts,  has  a 
right  to  expect  to  be  convinced,  if  conviction  is  attempted,  upon 
his  own  premises  of  reasoning,  that  a  certain  Scriptural  doctrine 
is  not  in  conflict  with  scientific  fact.  This  must,  therefore, 
be  kept  in  mind  by  the  reader,  as,  step  by  step,  we  endeavor 
to  prove,  from  established  and  assumed  premises  of  science, 
that  nature  really  agrees  with  Revelation  in  its  testimony  for 
a  creation  ex  nihilo.  Fully  believing  in  the  "round  table,"  our 
invitation  is,  Come,  let  us  reason  together. 

It  is,  therefore,  because  we  are  reasoning  from  the  view- 
point of  the  scientific  thinker,  that  even  many  of  the  as  yet  un- 
proved scientific  theories  are  made  to  bear  upon  our  subject 
and  are  treated  as  though  they  were  or  expressed  scientific  facts. 
And,  thus,  in  addition  to  showing  that  established  science  really 
testifies  to  a  creation  of  the  universe  ex  nihilo,  our  argument 
also  proves  that  even  the  more  speculative  theories  of  science 
point  in  the  same  inevitable  direction.  Hence,  the  evident  in- 
ference should  be  that  all  the  indications  of  the  present  develop- 


12  Introduction 

ments  of  science  point  to  the  same  absolute  creation  by  an  ab- 
solute sovereign  Personalit)'  as  is  so  manifestly  set  forth  in  the 
Christian    Scriptures. 

Many  of  the  arguments  against  the  anti-theistic  conceptions 
of  the  universe  herein  set  forth,  are  a  development  of  arguments 
repeatedly  employed  by  the  writer  in  reasoning  v^^ith  scien- 
tific and  other  honest  doubters,  as  well  as  with  self-confessed 
pronounced  atheists.  As  those  arguments,  in  actual  discussion, 
were  found  to  be  unanswerable,  they  were  briefly  set  forth  in 
short  papers,  as  well  as  in  occasional  addresses  on  the  evidences 
for  God  in  nature.  And,  now,  in  this  volume  they  are  more 
fully  elaborated  for  wider  application. 

It  should  be  said  also  that,  for  the  sake  of  completeness,  cer- 
tain very  important  points  at  least  partially  enter  into  the  argu- 
ment of  more  than  one  chapter.  But,  all  unnecessary  repe- 
tition is  avoided.  In  the  interests  of  fuller  illustration  and 
greater  emphasis  of  some  points  here  and  there  only  briefly 
made,  the  reader  is,  however,  occasionally  referred  to  other 
chapters,  in  which  such  points  or  arguments  are  more  fully  de- 
veloped. 

Throughout  the  whole,  the  aim  has  been  clearness  in  argu- 
ment no  less  than  perspicuity  in  language.  And,  although  even 
the  latest  scientific  theories  necessarily  figure  prominently  in 
the  discussions,  these  are,  we  believe,  made  as  intelligible  as  is 
ordinarily  possible  in  the  case  of  such  subjects.  Indeed,  for  this 
very  reason,  some  of  these  theories  are  developed  somewhat 
more  at  length  than  should  ordinarily  be  necessary  in  such 
a  treatise,  so  as  to  make  their  application  in  our  argument 
all  the  more  definite  and  convincing  also  to  the  scientifically 
untrained  mind. 

Moreover,  where  mathematics  enters  into  our  arguments, 
only  such  applications  of  it  are  made  as  are  necessary  to  make 
our  points  definite  and  clear.  But  all  its  higher  functions  and 
applications  are  avoided.  And,  indeed,  should  any  of  our  read- 
ers not  wish  even  to  follow  certain  of  these  mathematical 
demonstrations,  they  will  still  have  the  satisfaction  of  seeing 
the  results  or  conclusions  reached.  After  all,  the  chief  interest 
in  such  a  discussion  lies  in  the  fact  that  a  certain  inevitable 
result  or  conclusion  must  follow  from  certain  accepted  prem- 
ises, rather  than  how  that  result  is  attained.  And  yet,  al- 
though we  might  thus  have  given  only  the  conclusions  of  such 


Introduction  13 

processes  of  reasoning,  for  more  certain  conviction  we  let  the 
processes,  in  an  abbreviated  form,  appear  vulth  their  conclu- 
sions. Thus,  we  believe  that  our  argument  for  the  creation 
of  the  universe  out  of  nothing  by  a  supreme  spiritual  Person- 
ality— Whom  the  Christian  adores  as  God — will  be  simple 
enough  for  the  average  reader  and  yet  have  some  inter- 
est for  the  man  of  science,  while  we  trust  it  will  bring 
conviction  to  both.  Care  has  been  exercised  to  avoid  errors; 
but  some  may  nevertheless  have  crept  in. 

And  now,  with  the  invitation  to  the  various  classes  of 
readers,  ComCj  let  us  reason  together,  we  shall  send  forth  this 
volume  on  Its  intended  mission,  submitting  its  contents  to  their 
careful  consideration  and  candid  judgment. 

L.  F.  G. 

St.  Paulj  Minnesota 
June,  19 17 


CREATION  EX  NIHILO 


CREATION  EX  NIHILO 


CHAPTER  I 

THEORIES  AS  TO  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 
UNIVERSE 

It  may  be  said,  In  a  general  way,  that  there  are  two  distinct 
views  as  to  the  possible  origin  of  the  universe.  According  to 
the  one,  It  was  a  creation  or  a  development  from  an  eternally 
existing  substance  or  stuff,  whether  that  substance  be  considered 
as  the  essence  of  an  ever-operating  Divinity,  or  as  eternal  mat- 
ter operated  upon  by  an  external  Divinity  or  developed  by 
some  supposed  inherent  potentialities.  According  to  the  other, 
It  was  a  creation  out  of  nothing  in  time,  or  at  time's  begin- 
ning, by  the  omnific  will  of  an  eternal  and  absolute  Creator. 
And  the  former  of  these  views,  more  especially,  comprises  a 
number   of   somewhat   different   theories. 

I     SEVERAL  SPECULATIVE  THEORIES  BRIEFLY 

STATED 

The  theories  of  the  origin  of  the  universe  that  have  been 
offered  by  unenlightened  human  reason,  are  numerous;  but 
they  may  for  all  practical  purposes  be  divided  Into  several  dis- 
tinct groups.  It  is  not  necessary  for  our  purpose,  however,  to 
consider  all  of  them,  nor  here  to  discuss  even  any  one  of  them 
In  detail. 

According  to  the  Hindu  Rig- Veda,  the  universe  w^as  origi- 
nally a  confused  chaotic  darkness,  which  the  great  originator  or 
god  first  dispelled  and  then  created  water  with  its  seed  of  light. 
Out  of  this  seed  he  developed  a  golden  egg,  in  which  Brahma 
sat  a  year  in  meditation;  and,   finally   breaking  it,  he  made 

15 


1 6  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

heaven  and  earth  out  of  Its  two  halves.  According  to  mod- 
ern materiah'sm,  the  universe  had  no  beginning.  But  it  is  re- 
garded as  the  result  of  an  endless  series  of  developments  from 
itself  by  its  own  inherent  energy.  The  former  may  be  said  to 
put  the  hen  first;  the  latter  apparently  puts  the  egg  first,  gener- 
ally even  to  the  denial  of  the  existence  of  the  hen. 

As  we  have  given  the  theory  of  the  Rig-Veda  for  Eastern 
philosophic  speculation,  we  shall  also  let  several  authorities 
speak  for  Western  philosophic  science.  Upon  the  subject  of 
the  supposed  cosmic  development,  Ernst  Haeckel,  the  great 
champion  of  monistic  philosophy,  has  expressed  himself  in  the 
following  words:  ''By  this  [Monism]  we  unambiguously 
express  our  conviction  that  there  lives  'one  spirit  in  all  things,' 
and  that  the  whole  cognizable  world  Is  constituted,  and  has 
been  developed,  in  accordance  with  one  common  fundamental 
law.  We  emphasize  by  It,  in  particular,  the  essential  unity  of 
inorganic  and  organic  nature,  the  latter  having  been  evolved 
from  the  former  only  at  a  relatively  later  period"  {Monism  as 
Connecting  Religion  and  Science,  1894,  p.  30).  And  this 
development  is,  of  course,  assumed  to  have  been  or  be  an  eternal 
process,  as  expressed  by  A.  W.  Bickerton  In  the  following  state- 
ment: "Agencies  were  found  that  elevated  dissipating  energy, 
and  others  that  tended  to  disperse  matter,  until  a  complete 
mechanism  disclosed  itself;  that  rendered  it  possible  that  we 
exist  In  a  C3'clic  scheme  of  creation,  in  which  there  Is  no  evi- 
dence of  a  beginning  or  promise  of  an  end,  but  a  cosmic  whole 
Infinite  and  immortal"  {The  Birth  of  Worlds  and  Systems, 
191 1,  p.  10).  Moreover,  the  natural  inference  or  conclusion 
from  such  a  supposed  process,  on  the  part  of  Western  philo- 
sophic science,  is  that  matter,  energy  and  even  life  are  eternal. 
Thus  the  great  Swedish  scientist  Svante  Arrhenlus  speaks  as 
follows:  "Man  used  to  speculate  on  the  origin  of  matter,  but 
gave  that  up  when  experience  taught  him  that  matter  is  inde- 
structible and  can  only  be  transformed.  For  similar  reasons 
we  never  inquire  into  the  origin  of  the  energy  of  motion.  And 
we  may  become  accustomed  to  the  idea  that  life  is  eternal,  and 
hence  that  it-is  useless  to  inquire  Into  its  origin"  {Worlds  in 
the  Making,  1908,  p.  218).  And,  of  course,  from  such  prem- 
ises, it  must  be  only  logical  to  conclude  that  the  universe  is 
an  uncreated  entity.  And  this  has  come  more  and  more  to  be 
the  pet  theory  of  a  growing  group  of  scientists.    And  although 


Theories  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Universe  17 

this  is  the  implied  view  in  the  works  of  these  men,  it  has 
within  recent  years  very  frequently  become  a  matter  of  open 
declaration.  Among  many  such  statements  as  might  be  cited, 
we  would  quote  the  following  by  Dr.  Saleeby  in  The  Academy 
of  March  25,  1905 :  ''Radium-clocks  have  been  made  that  will 
go  for  a  million  years;  but  I  believe  that  tlie  Universe  was 
never  made  and  will  go  on  forever"  (Vol.  LXVIII.,  Article: 
The  Life  of  the  Universe j  p.  342).  Thus  the  universe  is  held 
to  be  infinite,  eternal  and  therefore  uncreated,  and  the  idea 
or  need  of  a  God  is  supposedly  eliminated  from  the  universe. 

Between  this  extreme  materialistic  position  and  that  of  the 
Rig-Veda  there  are  modified  theories  of  every  shade,  some 
closely  approaching  the  former  and  others  closely  approaching 
the  latter.  The  mythological  theories  of  paganism  are,  how- 
ever, generally  associated  with  some  idea  of  emanation,  the 
physical  universe  being  regarded  as  a  series  of  effluxes  from 
the  Godhead.  The  philosophico-scientific  theories  are  asso- 
ciated with  some  idea  of  development,  by  properties  and  forces 
inhering  in  supposed  eternally  existing  matter. 

In  a  general  way,  it  may  thus  be  said  that  Oriental  specu- 
lation makes  the  universe  to  flow  forth  from  Divinity  itself — 
although  even  John  Milton,  Sir  William  Hamilton,  et  al., 
also  entertained  similar  views — while  Western  philosophy 
makes  it  to  arise  out  of  eternal  matter.  And  in  both  there  is 
undoubtedly  a  bold  groping  after,  and  almost  a  grasping  of,  at 
least  a  part  of  the  real  truth.  But  while  there  are  elements  of 
truth  in  both,  they  nevertheless  both  sadly  miss  the  kernel  of 
truth  itself.  In  making  the  universe  an  emanation  from  Divin- 
ity, Oriental  philosophy  ends  in  the  ultimate  identifying  of  God 
and  the  universe,  leaving  the  universe  and  all  within  it  essen- 
tially divine.  In  making  the  universe  simply  an  inherently  nec- 
essary evolution  from  eternal  matter.  Western  philosophy  tends 
to  eliminate  the  idea  of  God,  at  least  as  a  personality,  alto- 
gether. And,  between  these  two  extremes,  human  speculation 
in  Orient  and  Occident  has  ever  been  oscillating,  now  deifying 
nature,  now  materializing  all;  but  the  true  conception  of 
what  really  constitutes  creation  has  been  absent  from  both. 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  there  is  a  tendency 
in  Western  philosophy,  in  a  sense,  to  approach,  or  rather  even 
to  pass,  Eastern  philosophy  on  this  subject.  Impelled  by  the 
inevitable  God-necessity  to  explain  the  universe,  some  Western 


1 8  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

philosophers  have  come  to  regard  the  universe  as  a  whole  as 
itself  God.  In  Oriental  philosophy  it  is  primarily  only  an 
emanation  from  God,  though  resulting  in  its  own  deification. 
Thus,  some  Western  Philosophers  have  been  driven  by  the  in- 
adequacy of  the  purely  materialistic  explanation  of  nature  to 
arrive  at  practically  the  same  end  as  that  which  Eastern  philos- 
ophers have  reached.  There  are,  of  course,  several  forms  of 
this  so-called  pantheisnij  one  of  them  being  but  a  very  little  ad- 
vance upon  pure  materialism. 

Driven  by  the  impelling  sense  of  the  necessity  of  a  Divinity 
back  of,  or  within,  the  great  All  to  account  for  its  existence, 
Ernst  Haeckel  gives  utterance  to  the  following:  "As  the  sim- 
pler occurrences  of  inorganic  nature  and  the  more  complicated 
phenomena  of  organic  life  are  alike  reducible  to  the  same  natu- 
ral forces,  and  as,  further,  these  in  their  turn  have  their  com- 
mon foundation  in  a  simple  primal  principle  pervading  infinite 
space,  we  can  regard  this  last  (the  cosmic  ether)  as  all-compre- 
hending divinity,  and  upon  this  found  the  thesis:  'Belief  in 
God  is  reconcilable  with  science'"   {Monism,  p.  92). 

While  we  do  not  want  to  anticipate  our  fuller  answer,  to 
be  given  later,  we  might  call  attention  to  the  faulty  reason- 
ing in  this  quotation.  The  whole  argument  is  based  upon  un- 
proved premises,  and  therefore  the  conclusion  is  untrustworthy. 
Where,  for  example,  is  the  proof  that  "the  simpler  occurrences 
of  inorganic  nature  and  the  more  complicated  phenomena  of 
organic  life  are  alike  reducible  to  the  same  natural  forces"? 
And  whence  did  the  learned  philosopher  derive  his  information 
that  these  natural  forces  have  "their  foundation  in  a  simple 
primal  principle  pervading  infinite  space"?  These  assumptions 
are  taken  as  facts  only  in  the  interests  of  a  theory.  What 
then  is  the  final  value  of  the  theorj?  Why  could  not  the 
author  just  as  readily  say  Personality  as  principle ,  and  thus 
practically  express  the  profounder  Christian  truth,  toward 
which  all  real  philosophic  speculation  has  more  or  less  ten- 
dency instinctively  ultimately  to  gravitate? 

And  what  is  true  of  the  reasoning  in  the  above  quotation 
is  equally  true  of  others  cited  earlier.  But  the  mere  calling 
of  the  attention  to  such  assumptions  should  be  sufficient  in  this 
connection  to  put  the  reader  on  his  guard  as  to  the  reasoning 
of  these  men  on  this  subject  in  general. 

In  contrast  with  the  pantheism  of  some  eminent  Western 


Theories  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Universe  19 

philosophers,  we  might  call  the  conception  of  creation  of  East- 
ern philosophers  panextheism.  The  Christian  conception  might 
then  truly  be  spoken  of  by  the  term  panentheism,  although 
this  word  is  subject  to  abuse.  There  is  a  broad  general  sense, 
therefore,  in  which  all  three  agree;  namely,  that  all  is  from 
God.  In  Eastern  philosophy  all  is  from  God  as  an  emanation 
from  His  divine  substance — all  from  or  ot/t  of  God — panexthe- 
ism. In  the  prevailing  form  of  philosophic  pantheism  all  is 
from  God  as  a  manifestation  or  unfolding  of  His  own  being — 
all  is  God.  To  the  Christian  philosopher  all  is  from  God  as 
an  entity  called  into  being  by  His  creative  will — all  from,  in 
the  sense  of  potentially  in,  God — panentheism.  But,  in  all  the 
speculations  on  the  subject  of  creation,  some  creative  Divinity 
is  either  assumed  or  implied.  Nor  can  any  theory  be  con- 
ceived of  as  workable  that  attempts  to  remove  God  altogether 
from  His  universe. 

More  than  this  brief  statement  of  the  prevailing  philosophic 
views  of  creation  it  is  not  necessary  here  to  give.  Other  de- 
tails of  the  materialistic  conception  will  be  given  in  our  fur- 
ther discussion,  as  also  there  will  be  of  the  Christian  concep- 
tion. 

II     SCRIPTURAL  IDEA  OF  CREATION  EX  NI- 
HILO—A  TRANSCENDENTAL  ONE 

The  undoubted  Scriptural  idea  of  creation,  as  we  hope  con- 
clusively to  prove  later,  is  that  which  furnishes  the  title  of 
this  book;  namely,  that  of  a  creation  ex  nihilo,  out  of  nothing. 
This  idea  of  creation,  by  the  free  volition  of  an  absolute  or 
unconditioned  and  eternal  Being — of  the  material  itself,  out 
of  nothing — is,  of  course,  foreign  to  mere  human  thought  and 
speculation.  The  mind  of  man  is  so  constituted  that  the  idea 
of  the  unconditioned  can  never  really  enter  unenlightened  con- 
sciousness. It  must  ever  reason  from  known  or  accepted  prem- 
ises or  data,  and  to  it  the  idea  bodied  forth  in  the  expression 
ex  nihiloj  is  even  unthinkable  as  an  element  of  such  premise. 

I     man's  limitations  as  to  the  conception  of  such  an 

IDEA 

To  the  natural  man  there  are  only  two  sources  of  informa- 
tion, his  limited  consciousness  and  experience.     And  neither 


f  20      .  Creation  Ex  Nihil 0 

consciousness  nor  experience  can  afford  him  any  data  as  to 
ultimate  origins.  Thus,  a  something  from  nothing — an  effect 
without  any  apparent  cause — is  totally  unthinkable.  It  does 
in  no  way  form  part  of  experience,  for  by  experience  we  know 
only  of  a  making  from  existing  materials;  and  it  cannot  enter, 
or  be  an  element  of,  the  consciousness  of  a  conditioned  mind. 
The  mind  is  finite,  as  it  is  but  part  of  a  created  (as  we  hope  to 
prove),  and  therefore  conditioned  or  limited,  material  and  spirit- 
ual universe,  as  we  know  even  from  consciousness;  and  it  is 
by  that  conditioned  universe  that  it  is  in  turn  conditioned  at 
every  point.  And,  therefore,  only  as  a  creature,  and  condi- 
tioned, and  in  terms  of  a  created,  conditioned  and  condition- 
ing, universe  can  the  mind  reason. 

It  is  this  conditioned  nature  of  the  human  mind  that  gives 
such  apparent  force  to  the  adage,  ex  nihilo  nihil  fit,  and  makes 
it  the  philosophic  axiom  that  it  is  commonly  regarded  to  be. 
It  is  this  also  that  indirectly  gave  birth  to,  and  sustains,  as 
great  working  hypotheses  in  the  present  state  of  nature,  such 
great  scientific  doctrines  as  those  of  the  universality  of  gravi- 
tation, the  uniformity  of  nature,  the  conservation  of  matter 
and  energy,  and  those  of  tri-dimensional  space  and  time  as  nec- 
essarily measured  duration,  as  well  as  all  accepted  axiomatic 
truths.  And,  indeed,  here  is  its  legitimate  sphere.  Without  a 
consistent  application  of  the  principle  that  underlies  these  scien- 
tific doctrines,  both  scientific  and  mechanical  progress  would 
be  impossible.  It  is  here  applied  to  the  determination  and  ap- 
plication of  laws  operating  in  an  already  existing  universe  in 
its  present  state,  in  which  an  accumulation  of  proper  data  is 
accessible,  but  to  which,  however,  such  data  for  reasoning  are 
limited. 

But,  when  that  conditioned  nature  of  the  mind  becomes  the 
ulterior  background  for,  or  the  ultimate  cause  of,  the  mind's 
denial  of  what  lies  beyond  its  limited  or  conditioned  conscious- 
ness and  experience,  such  as  a  creation  ex  nihilo,  it  is  plainly 
applied  to,  or  operative  in,  what  is  by  nature  totally  foreign  to 
it.  Or,  when  the  mind  in  its  conditioned  nature  attempts 
with  certainty  to  solve  the  problem  of  the  primal  origination 
of  the  existing  universe,  then  it  attempts  what  does  not  belong 
to  its  proper  sphere,  and  what  therefore  lies  beyond  the  range 
of  its  every  function.  All  its  data  for  reasoning  are  limited 
to  what  already  exists,  however  it  came  to  be.    Here,  then,  the 


Theories  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Universe  21 

conclusions  of  unenlightened  reason  cannot  be  trusted.  It  is, 
therefore,  absurd  for  the  human  mind  to  stand  in  judgment 
on   the  problem  of  creation. 

Some  statements  of  Sir  William  Hamilton  bearing  upon  this 
subject  add  confirmatory  evidence  for  the  point  just  made. 
Note,  for  example,  the  following:  "We  are  utterly  unable  to 
construe  it  in  thought  as  possible,  that  the  complement  of  ex- 
istence has  been  either  increased  or  diminished.  We  cannot 
conceive,  either,  on  the  one  hand  nothing  becoming  something, 
or,  on  the  other,  something  becoming  nothing"  {Discussions, 
Third  Edition,  1866,  p.  605).  As  we  cannot,  however,  agree 
with  Hamilton  in  his  different  application  of  this  principle,  an 
analysis  of  this  statement  seems  necessary. 

As  above  explained,  it  is  true,  as  this  author  says,  that  we 
are  unable  to  construe  in  thought  as  possible,  or  to  realize, 
either  absolute  creation  or  absolute  destruction.  But  it  is  not 
necessarily  true,  as  he  also  implies,  both  here  and  elsewhere, 
that  such  creation  and  destruction  are  not  possible.  It  is  also 
true  that  we  cannot  conceive  of  nothing  becoming  something, 
or  of  something  becoming  nothing.  Who  would  believe  in  such 
an  impossibility!  It  is  surely  far  from  us  to  believe  in  such 
a  becoming.  Nor  do  we  believe  even  in  a  creation  of  nothing 
into  something,  or  of  a  destruction  of  something  into  nothing, 
as  if  nothing  were  a  thing  out  of  which  something  was  created 
or  into  which  something  might  be  converted  by  destruction. 
Of  course,  such  an  impossibility  could  not  be  conceived. 

By  absolute  creation,  as  already  indicated,  is  meant  the  crea- 
tion of  something  without  previously  existing  materials,  so  that 
something  is  made  to  exist  where  before  there  was  nothing. 
And  so,  by  absolute  destruction  is  meant  the  total  blotting 
out  of  an  existence,  so  that  the  existence  altogether  ceases  to 
be.  And  yet,  as  clearly  shown,  even  this  cannot  be  directly 
conceived  of  by  the  finite  mind.  Therefore,  whatever  meaning 
as  to  creation  or  destruction  Hamilton  meant  to  convey,  he 
said  truly  that  we  axe  utterly  unable  to  conceive  of  it.  But, 
in  denying  the  possibility  of  absolute  creation  and  absolute 
destruction,  he  was  reading  into  the  being,  thoughts  and  acts 
of  an  unconditioned  God,  the  limitations  of  the  being,  thoughts 
and  acts  of  conditioned  man. 

This  error  of  Hamilton  was  a  natural  conclusion  from  the 
contradictory  elements  in  his  philosophy  of  the  Unconditioned, 


22         *  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

and  from  his  apparently  faulty  notion  of  casuality.  By  these 
errors  in  his  philosophy  he  was  driven  to  say,  "When  God  is 
said  to  create  the  universe  out  of  nothing,  we  think  this,  by 
supposing,  that  he  evolves  the  universe  out  of  nothing  but  him- 
self" {Discussions,  p.  605).  Such  creation  would  merely  mean 
emanation.  And  yet,  as  if  laboring  under  the  palpable  diffi- 
culties involved  in  his  reasoning  on  this  subject,  or  as  though 
perhaps  irnpelled  by  his  own  early  Christian  convictions,  he 
also  in  places  apparently  approached  the  Christian  conception  of 
creation.  Some  such  meaning  may  be  read  into  the  following 
words:  "It  [creation]  is  conceived,  and  is  by  us  conceivable, 
merely  as  the  evolution  of  a  new  form  of  existence  by  the  fiat 
of  the  Deity"  {Lectures  on  Metaphysics  and  Logic,  1859,  Vol. 
IL,  p.  405). 

The  fact  is,  that  in  Hamilton's  philosophy  an  absolute  crea- 
tion could  have  no  place.  And,  when  followed  to  its  ultimate 
conclusions,  his  philosophy  must  end  practically  in  a  pantheism 
whose  controlling  principle  is  that  of  a  fatalistic  necessity.  This 
should  be  a  striking  illustration  of  the  inconclusiveness  of  hu- 
man ratiocination,  especially  when  based  upon  faulty  premises, 
on  this  transcendental  subject. 

The  transcendental  nature  of  the  idea  of  a  creation  ex  nihilo 
has  also  been  recognized  by  some  other  philosophers,  among 
them  Herbert  Spencer  and  Ernst  Haeckel.  Thus,  Ernst 
Haeckel  has  expressed  himself  as  follows:  "The  conception 
of  creation  is  perfectly  unimaginable,  if  by  it  is  understood 
*an  origination  of  something  out  of  nothing.'  This  acceptation 
is  quite  incompatible  with  one  of  the  first  and  chiefest  of 
Nature's  laws — one,  indeed,  universally  acknowledged — 
namely,  with  the  great  law,  that  all  matter  is  eternal"  {Gen- 
erelle  Morphologic  der  Organismen,  Vol.  I.,  p.  171). 

The  conception  of  creation,  as  an  origination  of  something 
out  of  nothing,  is  truly  unimaginable;  but  it  is  not  so  because 
of  its  necessary  impossibility,  but  because  of  the  very  nature 
of  the  human  mind.  The  impossibility  does  not  exist  in  the 
nature  of  creation  or  of  the  created  universe;  but  it  exists 
in  the  created  nature  of  the  human  mind.  So-called  imagina- 
tion itself  is  in  reality  governed  by  experience.  Its  products 
contain  no  new  elements,  but  only  new  combinations  of  old 
presentations.  Therefore,  even  imagination,  in  its  final  analy- 
sis, cannot  transcend  the  elements  of  experience  and  conscious- 


Theories  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Universe  ^3 

ness.    Hence,  creation  ex  nihilo  cannot  even  be  imagined.    And 
so  far  Haeckel  has  spoken  truly. 

But,  when  the  learned  author  is  carried  away  by  his  pre- 
conceived notions  that  such  creation  is  absolutely  impossible, 
to  say  that  it  would  be  incompatible  "with  the  great  law,  that 
all  matter  is  eternal,"  he  is  inadvertently  led  to  a  petitio  prin- 
cipii.  Whether  matter  is  eternal  or  not  is  the  ultimate  ques- 
tion at  issue.  Hence,  to  speak  of  a  creation  out  of  nothing 
as  being  incompatible  with  such  a  supposed  law,  is  the  same 
as  speaking  of  a  creation  of  something  already  existent.  Such 
a  statement  is,  of  course,  a  palpable  absurdity. 

In  another  of  his  works  Haeckel  makes  a  similar  confession 
of  our  inability  to  understand  a  creation  out  of  nothing:  "Cre- 
ation, ...  as  the  coming  into  existence  of  matter j  does  not 
concern  us  here  at  all.  This  process,  if  indeed  it  ever  took 
place,  is  completely  beyond  human  comprehension,  and  can 
therefore  never  become  a  subject  of  scientific  inquiry.  Natu- 
ral science  teaches  that  matter  is  eternal  and  imperishable, 
for  experience  has  never  shown  us  that  even  the  smallest  par- 
ticle of  matter  has  come  into  existence  or  passed  away"  {The 
History  of  Creation j  Vol.  I.,  p.  8). 

In  this  passage  also  his  reasoning  seems  somewhat  incon- 
sistent. While  he  speaks  of  our  inability  to  comprehend  the 
process  of  such  a  creation,  if  it  ever  took  place,  he  definitely  de- 
clares that  matter  is  eternal  and  that  therefore  it  did  not  take 
place.  And,  if  matter  were  certainly  known  to  be  eternal, 
it  would  be  absurd  to  speak  of  such  a  creation,  or  even  of 
the  impossibility  or  possibility  of  comprehending  it.  But 
"there  is  the  rub."  Our  author  here  also,  for  the  sake  of  his 
monistic  philosophy,  is  plainly  begging  the  question.  It  is  one 
thing  to  say  that  matter  is  eternal,  or  that  science  definitely  so 
teaches;  but  it  is  quite  a  different  thing  to  prove  such  a  state- 
ment. He  therefore  assumes  what  even  for  his  own  philosophy 
must  first  be  proved.  If  matter  were  eternal  and  could  be 
proved  to  be  so,  then  the  question  of  such  a  creation  would 
forever  be  settled  and  closed.  And,  whether  it  is  so  or  not, 
is  the  chief  burden  of  our  consideration. 

Therefore,  while  these  statements  of  Hamilton  and  Haeckel 
illustrate  the  faulty  reasoning  with  which  some  eminent  men 
would  win  the  world  to  their  views,  they  really  strengthen 
our  arguments  in  proof  of  the  transcendental  nature  of  the 
Scriptural  idea  of  creation. 


24  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

2    man's  limitations  as  to  the  expression  of  such  an 

IDEA 

This  transcendental  nature  is  illustrated  even  in  the  very 
inadequacy  of  language  to  express  it.  And,  this  is  apparent 
in  the  language  not  only  of  those  v^^ho  reject  the  theistic  or 
Scriptural  view,  but  also  of  those  who  reverently  accept  that 
view.  Indeed,  all  human  language  is  the  outgrowth  of  neces- 
sity, terms  being  born  or  developed  whenever  new  ideas  demand 
expression,  or  old  terms  being  pressed  into  service  with  added 
meanings.  From  primary  or  root  ideas,  reason,  recognizing 
certain  relations,  comparisons,  etc.,  evolves  more  complex  but 
related  ideas.  Yet  all  these  ideas  may  be  said  to  have  their 
ultimate  root  in  the  phj^sical  sensorium,  and  are  developed  and 
modified  by  experience  in  contact  with  a  created  and  finite 
physical  universe.  Therefore,  through  sense  experience  and 
consciousness,  acted  upon  by  reason,  all  language  is  really  the 
outgrowth  of,  as  it  is  based  upon,  the  present  physical  sphere 
with  its  needs.  Infinityj  creation  ex  nihilo,  etc.,  extending  or 
lying  beyond  the  range  of  human  consciousness  and  experience, 
can  therefore  not  only  not  be  conceived,  but  they  cannot  even 
be  expressed  in  pri?nary  or  root  terms  of  human  speech. 

Thus,  the  word  infinite  is  simply  a  negative  term  expres- 
sive of  that  which  does  not  have  an  end.  The  really  unknown 
or  incomprehensible  idea  expressed  in  the  word  infinite  is  there- 
fore based  upon,  or  developed  from,  the  well  known  idea  of  a 
something  that  has  an  end.  The  same  is  true,  in  their  analysis, 
of  such  terms  as  endless^  eternity,  creation,  as  also  of  the  vari- 
ous expressions  for  God.  Thus,  the  etymology  of  such  He- 
brew names  for  God,  as  Jehovah,  El,  Elohim,  Elah,  Eloah, 
only  too  clearly  illustrate  the  inadequacy  of  human  speech  to 
express  the  transcendental  idea  of  God.  This  is  therefore  the 
natural  basis  of  the  many  anthropomorphisms  and  anthro- 
popathisms  of  the  Scriptures,  which  have  been  made  the  pre- 
tended ground  of  objection  to  its  contents  on  the  part  of  many 
men  of  science.  Thus,  Ernst  Haeckel  makes  the  following  ob- 
jection to  the  Scriptural  conception  of  God:  "As  a  rule  .  .  . 
it  is  an  open  or  covert  anthropomorphism.  God  is  conceived 
as  the  'Supreme  Being,'  but  turns  out,  on  closer  examination, 
to  be  an  idealized  man"  {Last  Words  on  Evolution,  p.  104). 
In  the  light  of  what  is  said  above,  it  should  be  almost  needless 


Theories  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Universe  25 

to  say  that  the  learned  author  ignores  the  real  cause  for  such 
necessary  anthropomorphism.  A  revelation  of  the  one  infinite 
and  absolute  Creator  to  a  finite  creature  would  not  really  be 
possible  in  terms  or  ideas  of  the  Infinite  and  Absolute.  It 
must  necessarily  be  made  in  terms  or  ideas  intelligible  to  such 
a  creature;  and  for  man  these  must,  of  course,  be  anthropo- 
morphic and  anthropopathic. 

It  is  manifestly  a  misapprehension,  or  an  apparent  lack  of 
proper  understanding  of  the  necessary  inadequacy  of  human 
speech  to  express  transcendental  ideas  like  that  of  God,  etc., 
that  has  thus  caused  so  much  confusion,  on  the  part  of  many 
scientists,  as  to  anthropomorphisms  and  anthropopathisms. 
This  has  given  rise  to  many  really  absurd  statements  along  this 
line  in  even  very  recent  scientific  and  philosophic  w^orks. 

This  inadequacy  of  human  language,  fully  to  express  the 
idea  of  creation,  because  it  transcends  experience  and  conscious- 
ness, is  therefore  itself  an  additional  evidence  of  the  transcen- 
dental nature  of  the  idea  itself.  Hence,  the  evident  struggling 
for  expressions  by  many  writers  to  body  forth  such  ideas,  as 
well  as  the  palpable  inconsistencies  and  confusion  in  the  reason- 
ing of  many  of  them  upon  this  transcendental  subject. 

Thus  language  and  idea  must  match  each  other,  and  neither 
of  them  is  the  measure  of  existence.  Hence,  creation,  God, 
etc.,  can  no  more  by  us  be  absolutely  expressed  than  they  can 
by  us  be  really  known  or  conceived.  But  the  sphere  of  our 
knowledge  or  conception  is  surely  not  conterminous  with  the 
sphere  of  existence  or  reality.  And  yet,  the  two  spheres  should 
be  virtually  concentric,  as  the  sphere  of  actual  knowledge  must 
be  a  real  part  of  the  sphere  of  reality — and,  of  course,  that  part 
nearest  to  the  centre  of  conception.  So,  the  sphere  of  reality 
for  man  must  proceed  from  the  centre  of  his  conception  out- 
v/ard  indefinitely  beyond  the  variable  sphere  of  knowledge. 
And  where  the  sphere  of  reality  passes  beyond  the  sphere  of 
human  knowledge  and  conception,  it  becomes  the  hypersphere 
of  faith.  And  yet,  even  that  hypersphere  of  a  truly  certified 
faith  can  not  nullify  or  set  aside  the  sphere  of  actual  knowl- 
edge, nor  can  it  even  be  in  conflict  with  consistent  reason — as 
it  is  only  the  extension  of  the  sphere  of  the  same  reality  as 
that  which  constitutes  limited  real  human  knowledge.  Hence, 
'where  knowledge  ends  faith  begins.  And  where  even  con- 
ception ends,  faith  in  a  reality  even  transcending  conception, 


26  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

rests  in  that  transcendental  reality  as  the  ne  plus  ultra  which 
is  the  necessary  postulate  for  all  existence.  And  that  ultimate 
reality  is  for  the  Christian  his  adorable  God;  and  for  others, 
from  the  agnostic  to  the  atheistic  materialist,  it  in  a  sense  must 
also  be  equivalent  to  some  causal  Divinity. 

Moreover,  as  the  sphere  of  our  real  knowledge  enlarges,  so 
also,  for  us,  must  the  transcendent  continuation  of  the  sphere 
of  reality  necessarily  enlarge  with  it.  The  larger  the  con- 
tained or  central  sphere  of  light  becomes,  the  larger  becomes 
the  containing  or  ensphering  sphere  of  darkness.  And  thus, 
with  the  expanding  of  the  sphere  of  our  conscious  knowledge  of 
reality  must  necessarily  expand  our  consciousness  or  concep- 
tion of  the  greatness  of  the  reality  that  transcends  our  knowl- 
edge. This  might  almost  be  considered  as  the  same  as  saying 
that  the  enlarging  of  the  sphere  of  conscious  knowledge  also 
necessarily  enlarges  our  consciousness  of  our  transcendent 
ignorance. 

And  thus  there  is  truly  a  variable  limit  to  the  certain,  and 
therefore  legitimate,  sphere  of  human  reason,  beyond  which 
there  can  be  no  direct  evidence  of  sense,  of  experience  and 
consciousness,  upon  which  to  base  trustworthy  conclusions. 
And,  therefore,  as  to  truth  and  reality  in  that  unexplored  re- 
gion, the  speculations  of  unenlightened  reason  cannot  safely  be 
followed.  And  ytt,  as  above  intimated  and  as  implied  through- 
out, there  is  a  universal  intuitive  conviction,  tantamount  vir- 
tually to  a  dim  indefinite  consciousness,  of  the  existence  of 
transcending  truths  and  realities  and  of  an  ultimate  or  trans- 
cendent absolute  Reality.  And  here  faith  in  this  natural  con- 
viction of  the  existence  of  such  realities  and  truths  is  as  neces- 
sary as  faith  in  the  supernatural  revelation  of  them,  devoutly  ac- 
cepted by  the  Christian.  Thus,  we  emphasize,  where  real 
knowledge  ends,  a  real  faith  based  upon  other  natural  evidence 
than  that  of  the  physical  sensorium,  as  well  as  faith  based  upon 
the  certified  evidence  of  the  Christian  Revelation,  naturally  be- 
gins. And  to  that  transcendental  realm  the  subject  of  crea- 
tion necessarily  belongs,  as  also  pointed  out  above. 

This  transcendental  nature  of  the  subject  in  hand  must, 
however,  not  prevent  us  from  making  a  careful  study  of  the 
same  in  the  interests  of  truth  against  error,  of  Christianity 
against  atheism.  By  nullifying  or  neutralizing  the  arguments 
of  the  objectors  to  the  Scriptural  idea  of  creation  ex  nihilo y  we 


Theories  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Universe  27 

shall  be  taking  away,  or  spiking,  their  only  weapons  of  de- 
fense. And,  in  addition  to  this,  by  incontrovertible  arguments 
in  proof  of  a  creation  by  a  supreme  Will,  we  hope  to  show 
not  only  that  this  transcendental  idea  of  creation  is  the  only 
tenable  one,  but  also  that  such  a  creation  is  even  a  demonstrable 
fact. 


CHAPTER  II 

MATERIALISM'S  EXPLANATION   OF   THE    UNI- 
VERSE  INADEQUATE 

Upon  the  mere  face  of  It,  especially  as  to  some  of  Its  funda- 
mental elements,  the  explanation  of  the  universe,  according  to 
materialism,  may  to  many  people  seem  rather  plausible.  Its 
primary  assumption,  as  has  already  been  noted,  is  that  matter 
is  uncreatable  and  Indestructible,  that  it  must  therefore  have 
existence  from  eternity,  and  that  therefore  also  It  must  through 
eternity  continue  to  exist. 

This  assumption  is,  however,  clearly  a  petitio  principii;  for, 
whether  matter  is  uncreatable  and  indestructible  or  not,  or 
whether  it  is  eternal  or  not,  is  the  question  at  issue.  The  fact 
that  matter  is  uncreatable  and  indestructible  by  human  means 
is  no  proof  of  Its  being  eternal.  Because  of  our  own  limita- 
tions, we  cannot  deny  to  Almightiness  the  power  of  absolute 
creation  and  absolute  destruction  any  more  than  the  power  of 
a  making  from  previously  existing  materials  or  a  changing  of 
form. 

Materialism,  moreover,  assumes  certain  potentialities  or 
energy  In  this  supposedly  eternal  matter,  by  the  operations  of 
which  the  great  cosmos,  including  the  phenomena  of  life  and 
mind  and  history,  through  long  cycles  of  progression  or  evolu- 
tion, came  to  be.  We  shall  now  consider  the  explanation  of 
the  universe,  according  to  materialism,  somewhat  more  at 
length,  under  two  heads;  namely,  as  to  inorganic  nature  and 
as  to  organic  nature. 

I    AS  TO  INORGANIC  NATURE 

Eminent  scientists  have  come  to  the  natural  conclusion  that 
only  the  form  of  matter  is  changeable,  but  the  ultimate  sub- 
stance   never.     Thus    Clerk-Maxwell,     in    his    Lecture    on 

28 


Materialism's  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  29 

Molecules  before  the  British  Association,  Bradford,  1873, 
made  the  following  statement:  "Natural  causes,  as  we 
know,  are  at  work  which  tend  to  modify,  if  they  do  not  at 
length  destroy,  all  the  arrangements  and  dimensions  of  the 
earth  and  the  whole  solar  system.  But  though  in  the  course 
of  ages  catastrophes  have  occurred  and  may  yet  occur  in  the 
heavens,  though  ancient  systems  may  be  dissolved  and  new 
systems  evolved  out  of  their  ruins,  the  molecules  out  of  which 
these  systems  are  built — the  foundation-stones  of  the  material 
universe — remain  unbroken  and  unworn"  {Scientific  Papers, 
Vol.  II.,  p.  377). 

This  scientific  doctrine  of  the  apparent  indestructibility  of 
matter,  amid  its  Protean  transformations,  is  made  the  basic 
principle  of  modern  materialism.  And,  in  a  general  sense,  at 
least  from  the  standpoint  of  man's  powers,  it  may  be  scien- 
tifically true  for  the  existing  or  present  order  of  nature.  And 
yet,  it  is  now  definitely  known  that  even  the  atoms — those  sup- 
posed foundation-stones  of  the  universe — are  disintegrating  by 
what  is  known  as  their  own  intrinsic  sub-atomic  energy,  and 
that  this  energy  must  ultimately  be  dissipated  as  heat  and 
eventually  be  equalized  and  lost  for  further  use. 

I       THE    REASONING    OR    METHOD    AND    THE    SPIRIT    OF    MA- 
TERIALISM   ANTI-THEISTIC 

Materialists,  of  course,  hold  to  the  scientific  doctrine  that 
all  matter  ultimately  consists  of  individual  but  infinitesimal 
particles  called  atoms  and  electrons.  And  this  theory  is  un- 
doubtedly correct.  They  declare  that  these  ultimate  particles 
combine  into  molecules  according  to  definite  laws,  and  that 
aggregations  of  these  molecules  constitute  masses.  And  this  is 
equally  true.  They  teach  that,  by  the  operations  of  inherent 
energy,  these,  in  their  interactions,  have  evolved  into  the  great 
cosmos  of  which  man  with  his  body  and  rational  soul  is  a  part. 
This  is,  however,  only  an  hypothesis  of  scientific  faith;  or, 
shall  we  say,  of  scientific  wish?  But,  within  and  above  or 
beyond  the  universe,  materialists  recognize  no  living  divine 
Personality  originating  and  energizing  all.  In  this  theory  God 
has  no  place,  as  the  God-factor  is  supposedly  not  needed.  Its 
assumed  eternal  matter,  with  its  supposed  inherent  and  ever- 
operating  potentialities,  is  considered  sufficient  to  account  for 


30    '  Creation  Ex  Nihiio 

all  existence.  Thus,  in  such  works  as  Laplace's  (i 749-1 827) 
System  of  Celestial  Mechanics  (Mechanique  Celeste j  I799> 
etc.),  there  is  no  place  for  an  ever-operating  and  sustaining 
Deity.  This  was  readily  recognized  by  the  great  Napoleon, 
as  he  read  Laplace's  book.  He  accordingly  said  to  the  philo- 
sophic astronomer,  "Monsieur,  I  have  examined  your  work  and 
find  therein  no  room  for  the  existence  of  God."  The  answer 
of  Laplace,  from  the  viewpoint  of  an  all-sufficient  materialism, 
naturally  was,  "Citizen,  premier  consul,  I  have  no  need  of 
such  an  hypothesis."  In  his  earlier  work,  Exposition  du  Sys- 
teme  du  monde  (1796),  he  had  similarly  attempted  to  account 
for  nature  altogether  without  a  creative  Deity. 

And  yet,  the  nebular  theory  of  a  purely  natural  mechanistic 
explanation  of  supposed  cosmic  evolution,  is  more  and  more 
being  rejected  in  the  form  in  which  Laplace  gave  it  to  the 
world.  Thus,  after  considering  the  nebular  theory  in  the  light 
of  irregular  movements  of  comets,  etc.,  Sir  Robert  Ball  sums 
up  as  follows:  "The  solar  system  consists  of  some  thousands 
of  different  bodies;  these  bodies  move  in  orbits  of  the  most 
varied  degree  of  eccentricity;  they  have  no  common  direction; 
their  planes  are  situated  in  all  conceivable  positions  save  only 
that  each  of  these  planes  must  pass  through  the  sun.  Stated  in 
this  way,  the  present  condition  of  the  solar  sjstem  is  surely  no 
argument  for  the  nebular  theory.  It  might  rather  be  said 
that  it  is  inconceivable  on  the  nebular  theory  how  a  system  of 
this  form  could  be  constructed  at  all.  Nine-tenths  of  the 
bodies  in  the  solar  system  do  not  exhibit  movements  which 
would  suggest  that  they  were  produced  from  a  nebula.  .  .  . 
The  planetary  system  now  lives*  because  it  was  an  organism 
fitted  for  survival"   {In  the  High  Heavens j  p.  224). 

This  and  other  conclusions  of  some  eminent  scientists  should 
go  a  long  way  to  put  people  on  their  guard  against  too  readily 
accepting  the  verdict  of  certain  other  scientists  as  final.  And, 
of  course,  when  these  men  substitute  nature  for  God,  or  deify 
nature  and  spell  it  with  a  capital  N,  and  dogmatically  declare 
against  the  existence  of  God,  it  were  well  to  be  somewhat  timid 
in  following  these  self-constituted  orphans  in  the  universe. 
Surely,  a  man  who  denies  his  father,  must  have  an  ulterior 
motive  and  can,  therefore,  not  be  trusted  as  a  guide. 

Fully  as  emphatic  as  Laplace — and  even  more  so  in  some 
cases — in  their  denial  of  the  existence  of  God,  have  been  some 


Materialism's  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  31 

other  writers.  Thus,  some  statements  of  Schopenhauer,  Feuer- 
bach,  and  others  that  might  be  mentioned,  border  even  on  the 
profane.  Thus,  Feuerbach  went  so  far  as  to  say,  "There  is  no 
God ;  it  is  clear  as  the  sun  and  as  evident  as  the  day  that  there 
is  no  God,   and  still  more   that  there  can  be  none." 

Of  similar  import  is  Ernst  Haeckel's  dogmatic  declaration, 
in  the  interests  of  his  philosophy  of  materialistic  monism,  as 
follows:  "Our  monistic  view,  that  the  great  cosmic  law  [of 
the  conservation  of  substance]  applies  throughout  the  whole 
of  nature,  is  of  the  highest  moment.  ...  It  marks  the  highest 
intellectual  progress,  in  that  it  definitely  rules  out  the  three 
central  dogmas  of  metaphysics — God,  jfreedom,  and  immor- 
tality" {The  Riddle  of  the  Universe,  1900,  p.  232).  And 
equally  dogmatic  and  unfounded  are  the  following  later  words 
by  the  same  author:  "These  two  laws  [of  the  conservation 
of  matter  and  the  conservation  of  energy]  are  irreconcilable 
with  the  three  central  dogmas  of  metaphysics,  which  so  many 
educated  people  still  regard  as  the  most  precious  treasures  of 
their  spiritual  life — the  belief  in  a  personal  God,  the  personal 
imm.ortality  of  the  soul,  and  the  liberty  of  the  human  will" 
{Last  Words  on  Evolution,  1906,  pp.  lio-ili). 

In  Haeckel's  opinion,  monism  is  the  undoubted  key  to  the 
explanation  of  all  existence.  He  thus  considers  settled  not 
only  the  doctrine  of  the  nature  of  matter,  which  he  regards  as 
an  eternal  entity,  but  even  that  of  the  origin  of  sensation  and 
consciousness.  Monistic  evolution  he  considers  sufficient  to 
account  for  the  evident  order  and  arrangement  in  nature,  the 
origin  of  life,  together  with  rational  thought  and  human 
speech.  There  is,  therefore,  no  need  of  a  creating  and  direct- 
ing Deity.  Free  personality  has,  therefore,  also  no  existence 
in  reality.  What  might  be  considered  as  Deity,  is,  therefore, 
not  a  Personality,  but  the  inherent  potentiality  or  the  evolu- 
tionary impulse  in  nature,  which  may  be  traceable  to  the  ulti- 
mate ether,  as  he  explains  elsewhere  {Ibid.,  p.  16).  Thus 
nature  and  what  there  is  of  a  Deity  are  one,  as  also  are  body 
and  the  so-called  soul,  matter  and  so-called  energy.  Matter 
and  spirit  are,  therefore,  regarded  as  two  attributes,  or  faces 
of  the  one  universal  substance,  which  is  itself  essentially  divine. 
Substance  would  thus  be  a  double-faced  entity,  as  Alexander 
Bain  expressed  it.  The  philosophy  of  monism  may,  therefore, 
well  be  designated  as  monistic  pantheism. 


32  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

Somewhat  similar  in  tone  to  the  statements  of  Haeckel,  is 
the  following  by  Gustave  LeBon:  "If  hypotheses  analogous 
to  mine  [as  to  the  origin  of  matter  and  energy]  are  rejected, 
we  must  return  to  that  of  a  creator  drawing  forth  worlds 
from  his  will — that  is  to  say,  from  a  nothing  much  more 
mysterious  still  than  the  substratum  from  which  I  have  en- 
deavoured to  raise  them.  The  gods  having  been  eliminated 
from  nature,  where  our  ignorance  alone  had  placed  them, 
we  must  try  to  explain  things  without  them"  {The  Evolution 
of  Forces,  1908,  p.  98). 

It  is  thus  readily  seen  that  materialism's  burden  is  to  re- 
move God  from  the  universe  by  explaining  everything  without 
Him.  And  the  wish  seems  to  be  father  of  the  thought.  There 
is,  therefore,  a  manifest  method  in  its  madness.  And,  indeed, 
materialism's  explanation  of  the  universe,  superficially  viewed, 
seems  almost  like  conclusive  reasoning:  but  let  us  more  closely 
examine  it. 

2      THE    PREMISES    OF    MATERIALISM    MATTERS    OF    INDEFINITE 
UNFOUNDED    SCIENTIFIC    FAITH 

To  materialists,  the  Christian's  conception  of  creation  is 
too  much  a  matter  of  faith.  They  must  know,  and  surely  the 
idea  of  God  cannot,  as  they  contend,  be  a  matter  of  knowledge. 
And  yet,  their  own  reasoning  is  also,  in  its  last  analysis — and 
must  necessarily  be — based  upon  faith.  Materialists  postulate 
as  their  major  premise  what  is  really  the  burden  of  proof; 
namely,  the  eternity  and  indestructibility  of  matter.  They 
must  accept  the  theory  of  infinitesimal  atoms  and  electrons, 
which  themselves  necessarily  lie  beyond  the  range  of  all  certain 
knowledge  gained  by  direct  experience  and  consciousness.  They 
combine  these  infinitesimal  particles  by  laws  for  whose  origin 
they  can  furnish  no  explanation.  And  back  of  all  these  com- 
binations for  the  evolution  of  the  great  complex  whole  they 
place  force  or  energy  for  which  they  can  assign  no  cause.  And, 
the  crowning  wonder  of  it  all !  if  we  may  anticipate,  the  definite 
implication  is  that  their  own  conditioned  minds,  themselves  the 
supposed  result  of  this  cosmic  evolution,  have  thus  reasoned 
out  the  very  processes  of  their  own  origination  and  those  by 
which  the  universe  came  to  be.  This  certainly  looks  like  a 
man  attempting  to  weigh  himself  while  holding  his  own  scale. 


Materialism's  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  33 

Thus,  these  men  must  continually  assume  as  working  hy- 
potheses what  are  as  much  matters  of  faith  as  the  Christian's 
God.  And,  if  they  regard  the  existence  of  the  Christian's  God 
as  an  hypothesis,  then,  as  we  shall  show,  this  God-hypothesis — 
using  their  own  terminology — is  immeasurably  grander  and 
far  more  adequate  and  intelligible  as  an  explanation  of  the 
existing  universe  than  the  matter-and-energy-hypothesis,  the 
hypothesis  of  dust-and-death,  of  materialism. 

In  thus  attempting  to  explain,  or  solve  the  problem  of,  crea- 
tion without  the  God-factor,  some  physical  scientists  have 
been  led  into  a  bewildering  maze  of  perplexities  and  contra- 
dictions. They  reason  as  if  in  the  equation  three  times  five 
equals  fifteen  (3  X  5  =  15),  the  first  member  were  partly 
or  entirely  omitted,  leaving  it  to  stand  three  times  ....  equals 
fifteen  (sX----  =  15)5  or....  equals  fifteen  ( .  . . .  =  15), 
• — a  manifest  absurdity  and  the  latter  not  even  a  statement. 

While  the  problem  of  creation  cannot  be  solved  nor  really 
even  be  adequately  illustrated  mathematically,  we  believe  that 
some  idea  can  be  gained  by  expressing  it  in  the  form  of  an 
equation.  Thus,  let  the  word  equals  stand  for  or  represent 
the  word  created:  then  the  statement,  God  by  His  will  or 
poiuer  created  the  universe,  may  be  represented  thus,  God 
times  His  will  or  power  equals  the  universe  (God  X  His  will 
or  power  =  the  universe).  The  materialist,  of  course,  ac- 
cepts the  last  member  of  the  equation,  equals  the  universe,  for 
it  exists.  But,  in  assuming  the  eternal  existence  of  matter 
or  the  universe,  he  might  be  said  altogether  to  omit  the  first 
member  of  our  equation,  leaving  it  not  an  equation.  For,  as 
it  did  not  have  a  beginning,  it  therefore  had  no  origin,  and 
therefore  no  cause;  and  thus  there  would  be  no  first  member 
and  therefore  no  equation.  Or  with  him  the  explanation  of 
the  universe  might  be^  "The  universe  equals  the  universe." 
Or  he  might  be  regarded  as,  for  its  cause,  postulating  eternal 
matter,  as  one  of  its  factors,  and  as  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously linking  with  it  some  force  or  energy,  unaccounted  for, 
as  another  factor  in  the  first  member.  But  even  this  would 
not  cause  it  to  be  an  equation,  but  leave  it  an  inequality  with 
the  second  member  greater  than  the  first  (cause  <  universe), 
as  we  shall  see.  He  thus  fails  to  link  with  it  or  place  back 
of  it  an  adequate  or  sufficient  and  definite  cause.  And 
the  only  adequate  or  sufficient  cause  that  can  possibly  be  sup- 


34    '  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

plied  as  such  factor  in  that  equation  to  complete  and  balance 
it — even  if  eternal  matter  were  assumed — is  the  factor  which 
the  Christian  adores  as  God^  as  we  shall  show. 

Of  the  materialist  we  might  ask  a  whole  series  of  ques- 
tions, which,  even  from  his  own  standpoint,  are  absolutely 
unanswerable.  Whence  is  matter  with  its  property  of  eter- 
nalism?  Whence  the  atoms  and  electrons  that  are  the  ele- 
ments of  matter?  Whence  the  laws  that  govern  their  com- 
binations? Whence  the  motions  that  are  supposed  to  combine 
them;  for  these,  apart  from  an  ulterior  energy,  are  contrary 
to  the  law  of  inertia  ?  Whence  the  forces  that  produce  or  pro- 
duced these  motions?  Whence  the  energy  that  lies  back  of 
all  these  forces?  And  whence  did  he,  himself  the  supposed 
product  of  all  his  unexplained  zvhence  or  thence,  derive  his 
knowledge  of  all  this  supposedly  eternally  existing,  but  really 
conditioned  and  conditioning,  universe,  of  which  he  himself  is 
in  one  sense  the  most  conditioned,  and  yet  in  another  sense  the 
most  mysteriously  wonderful,  part?  And,  wonder  of  won- 
ders! if  his  universe  is  all  evolved  and  is  still  evolving,  how 
long,  or  rather  how  short,  is  his  eternity,  that  the  universe 
did  not  reach  the  end  of  its  evolutions  unassignable  ages  ago? 

Energy  is  surely  not  merely  the  product  of  inert  matter, 
because  matter  would  be  an  inadequate  cause  to  produce  such 
energy.  The  effect  must  be  in  the  cause;  but  here  the  effect 
would  be  totally  different  from  anything  in  the  cause.  We 
are,  of  course,  speaking  of  a  non-absolute  entity  as  a  cause. 
The  same  reasoning  would  hold  in  proving  that  inert  matter 
is  not  from  energy,  if  the  materialist  would  change  his  base  and 
declare  for  the  eternity  of  physical  energy  instead  of  matter, 
and  assert  that  matter  was  produced  by  physical  energy.  And, 
to  say  that  energy,  or  matter,  produced  itself  would  be  an 
absurdity.  Moreover,  to  the  materialist,  energy  does  not  even 
have  any  existence  apart  from  matter.  Thus,  in  trying  to 
evade  the  really  inevitable  God-factor  in  explaining  what 
should  almost  axiomatically  be  accepted  as  a  God-created  and 
God-governed  universe,  the  materialist  tries  to  hide  himself 
behind  glittering  generalizations  and  half-truths,  which  he  at- 
tempts to  hold  together  in  plausible  consistency  with  a  broken 
chain  of  inconclusive  argumentation.  But  in  his  vain  at- 
tempt he  really  is  burying  himself  beneath  a  heap  of  absurdi- 
ties and  contradictions. 


Materialisjns  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  35 

The  materialist  admits  the  existence  of  nature  or  matter: 
why  will  he  not  admit  the  existence  of  a  nature-Builder,  a 
matter-Creator,  as  the  ultimate  Cause?  He  admits  the  ex- 
istence of  infinitesimally  small  particles,  by  whose  combina- 
tions the  material  cosmos  was  made  possible;  and  in  so  doing 
he  clearly  implies  in  those  very  fitted  particles  and  in  that 
very  cosmos  as  an  end,  a  Fitter  or  Designer,  and  therefore 
an  intelligent  First  Cause.  Then,  why  does  he  not  openly 
acknowledge  the  existence  of  that  First  Cause?  He  admits 
the  existence  of  definite  laws  of  combinations  for  these  in- 
finitesimal particles:  why  does  he  not  admit  the  existence  of 
their  law-Giver?  He  admits  the  presence  of  motions  and  in- 
teractions among  his  hypothetical  particles:  why  does  he  not 
admit  their  implied  cause,  a  mighty  Mover?  He  admits  the 
existence  of  force  and  ultimate  energy:  then,  why  is  he  not 
willing  to  admit  that  of  the  great  Forcer  or  Energizer  of 
all? 

Even  some  of  the  most  eminent  materialists  are  compelled 
to  acknowledge  this  irresistible  logic  of  facts.  Thus,  in  the 
famous  Berlin  Discussions,  February,  1 907,  Prof.  Plate  was 
compelled  to  make  the  following  concession:  "Personally,  I 
always  maintain  that,  if  there  are  laws  of  nature,  it  is  only 
logical  to  admit  that  there  is  a  lawgiver"  (Erich  Wassmann: 
The  Problem  of  Evolution,  p.  108).  What  could  be  more  self- 
convicting  on  the  part  of  an  acknowledged  authority  on  monis- 
tic materialism!  He  would  surely  not  deny  the  existence  of 
so-called  laws  of  nature,  for  these  are  the  foundation  prin- 
ciples upon  which  his  theory  is  constructed.  Hence,  his  state- 
ment, upon  his  own  conditions,  necessitates  the  existence  of  a 
lawgiver,  or  else  it  is  nothing  but  empty  words.  That  the 
materialist  must  make  these  admissions  by  the  very  logic  of 
necessity,  will  be  more  fully  shown  when  we  shall  set  forth 
the  positive  side  of  the  case  and  develop  these  points  in  later 
chapters. 

n    AS  TO  ORGANIC  NATURE 

So  far  we  have  spoken  of  inorganic  nature.  Now,  how 
about  organic  nature?  Whence  came  organisms?  Whence 
came  life?     And  yet,  even  for  these  phenomena,  materialism 


36  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

has  an  explanation  to  offer,  and  one  that  is  apparently  to  itself 
quite  satisfactory.  It  is  summed  up  for  us  by  Robert  Kennedy 
Duncan  in  the  following  words:  "It  may  safely  be  said 
that  many,  perhaps  most,  men  of  science — physiological  chem- 
ists, biologists,  and  psychologists — are  agreed  upon  one,  'There 
is  no  Life  apparently  necessary  to,  or  visible  in,  the  body; 
therefore  there  is  no  Life.'  Upon  this  assumption  they  believe 
and  they  teach  that  all  our  feelings,  thinkings,  and  willings, 
our  very  consciousness,  are  the  products  of  the  play  of  the 
ph5''sico-chemical  processes  in  the  brain"  {Some  Chemical  Prob- 
lems of  To-Day^  191 1,  p.  80).  Thus  life  as  a  separate  entity 
has  no  place  in  the  system  of  materialism.  It  is  a  phenomenon 
of  matter  and  nothing  more. 


I       ACCORDING  TO  MATERIALISM,  LIFE  AND  MIND  ONLY  FORMS 
OR  RESULTS  OF  ENERGY 

The  fact  is,  the  materialistic  scientist  necessarily  deals  with 
matter  and  its  associated  energy  alone.  And,  as  life  has  some 
similarities  to  energy,  there  is  a  tendency  to  regard  it  as  a 
form  of  energy.  As  such,  in  his  natural  processes  of  reason- 
ing, it  must  necessarily  either  have  been  co-eternal  with  mat- 
ter or  it  must  be  the  product  of  matter.  Thus  the  processes 
of  life  are  explained  chemically  and  electrically.  Some  hold 
them  to  be  due  to  the  actions  of  negative  and  positive  ions. 
Life,  as  well  as  disease,  has  been  regarded  as  a  series  of 
fermentations.  As  to  mind,  that  is  to  him,  of  course,  the  re- 
sult of  the  collocation  of  the  molecules  of  the  highly  organized 
brain,  or  of  the  above  in  still  greater  complexity. 

A  purely  materialistic  conception  of  life  necessarily  requires 
a  purely  materialistic  definition.  And  such  a  definition  is  the 
famous  one  by  Herbert  Spencer,  that  life  is  "The  definite  com- 
bination of  heterogeneous  changes,  both  simultaneous  and 
successive,  in  correspondence  with  external  co-existences  and 
sequences'*  {The  Principles  of  Biology,  1900,  Vol.  I.,  p.  93). 
From  the  view-point  of  materialism  this  sounds  like  a  sage  ex 
cathedra  declaration  that  expresses  much  in  a  few  words.  But, 
while  it  has  considerable  scientific  force,  it  nevertheless  reminds 
us  somewhat  of  a  traditional  definition  by  Plato;  namely,  that 
man  is  a  biped  without  feathers.    The  story  runs  that  his  pupil 


Materialism's  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  37 

Aristotle,  noticing  a  possibly  wider  application  of  the  defini- 
tion, quickly  stripped  a  rooster  of  his  feathers  and  brought  him 
to  his  master,  saying,  *'Here  be  Plato's  man."  The  applica- 
tion to  Spencer's  definition  is  left  to  the  reader. 

It  is,  of  course,  almost  needless  to  say  that  with  such  a 
conception  of  life  and  mind,  man,  with  what  has  been  re- 
garded as  an  immortal  soul,  must  fall  from  his  exalted  throne 
of  being,  superior  to  the  rest  of  surrounding  nature.  There- 
fore, in  accordance  with  this  materialistic  monistic  philosophy, 
Ernst  Haeckel  is  thoroughly  consistent  when  he  makes  the  fol- 
lowing declaration:  *'Our  own  'human  nature,'  which  exalted 
itself  into  an  image  of  God  in  an  anthropistic  illusion,  sinks 
to  the  level  of  a  placental  mammal,  which  has  no  more  value 
for  the  universe  at  large  than  the  ant,  the  fly  of  a  summer's 
day,  the  microscopic  infusorium,  or  the  smallest  bacillus.  Hu- 
manity is  but  a  transitory  phase  of  the  evolution  of  an  eternal 
substance,  a  particular  phenomenal  form  of  matter  and  energy, 
the  true  proportion  of  which  we  soon  perceive  when  we  set 
it  on  the  background  of  infinite  space  and  eternal  time"  {The 
Riddle  of  the  Universe,  p.  244). 

This  might  as  well  be  considered  as  simply  a  beautiful  col- 
lection of  figures  of  speech.  The  figures  or  outlines  are  there; 
but  the  substances  or  contents  are  largely  a  human  creation 
ex  nihilo.  What  a  strange  descent  on  the  part  of  the  learned 
author  from  an  image  of  Deity  to  a  placental  mammal,  an 
ant,  a  fly,  an  infusorium,  a  bacillus!  It  must  seem  like  mak- 
ing a  discovery  to  learn  by  one's  own  power  and  choice  so 
much  of  one's  real  self!  But  how  was  such  wonderful  knowl- 
edge arrived  at?  What  were  the  premises  of  reasoning?  How 
were  those  assumed  premises  raised  to  the  exalted  status  of  fact 
in  the  interests  of  the  dethronement  of  man?  And  as  to  that 
supposed  eternal  substance,  and  man  as  that  transitory  phase 
of  its  evolution,  whence  the  high  authority  for  such  sage  ut- 
terances about  things  merely  assumed?  And  as  to  eternal  time 
and  infinite  space,  where  are  the  proofs?  And  this  should  be 
all  the  more  imperative  when  some  of  the  most  recent  dis- 
coveries of  science,  as  well  as  the  unbiased  dictates  of  reason, 
are  in  conflict  with  most  of  these  assumptions  of  this  great 
philosopher. 


38  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

2      A  LIFE-PERVADED  ORGANISM   ESSENTIALLY  DIFFERENT  FROM 
AN    INANIMATE    CRYSTALLIZATION 

Surely  the  materialist  cannot  help  but  recognize  the  difFer- 
ence  even  between  an  inanimate  crystallization  and  a  life- 
pervaded  organism.  He  cannot  explain  even  the  crystalliza- 
tion, except  by  hiding  himself  behind  crystallized  statements  of 
supposed  laws.  Yet,  even  in  so  doing,  as  already  noted,  he  im- 
plies a  law-Giver  back  of  it.  And  for  the  materialist  not  to 
acknowledge  the  existence  of  a  law-Giver  back  of  crystal 
formations  and  their  lawSj  in  the  face  of  those  formations  and 
their  laws,  is  as  absurd  as  for  his  untutored  servant,  or  his  own 
child,  to  deny  the  materialist's  existence  in  the  face  of  his 
crystallized  statements  of  those  laws  or  even  of  his  personal 
'presence. 

And,  if  he  cannot  explain  inanimate  crystallization  without 
implying  the  Divine  power  back  of  it,  how  can  he  explain 
the  mystery  of  the  existence  of  a  living  organism  without  as- 
suming back  of  it  a  living  Organist  or  Organizer?  He  per- 
sistently declares  for  the  adequacy  of  every  cause  to  produce 
its  effect:  how  then  will  he  explain  the  origin  of  life  from 
dead  matter?  And  yet  his  whole  chain  of  reasoning  hangs 
with  one  end  upon  the  peg  of  supposed  eternal  matter  and 
with  the  other  upon  a  life-pervaded  completed,  or  perhaps  still 
evolving,  cosmos.  By  what  congeries  of  reasonings  can  a  uni- 
verse teeming  with  motion  and  life  be  made  to  be  the  product 
from  a  motionless  aggregation  of  unnumbered  lifeless  material 
atoms  or  electrons,  or  what  not,»  not  to  speak  even  of  the 
primal  origination  of  these  particles?  Then,  how  about  man 
with  all  the  wonderful  faculties  of  his  mind,  of  which  the 
materialist's  own  ratiocinations — though  oft  inconclusive — 
themselves  afford  a  striking  illustration?  Here,  surely,  one 
would  think  that  the  materialist  would  almost  bow  with 
reverence  before  his  own  wonderful  being!  But  no,  even  his 
own  boasted  intellect  he  declares  to  be  but  the  resultant  of 
molecular  Interaction,  or  of  chemical  and  electrical  action, 
within  the  cells  of  his  own  brain.  And  how  wonderful!  by 
this  molecular  interaction,  or  chemical  and  electrical  action, 
within  his  own  brain,  as  a  producer,  this  product  of  molecules, 
atoms  or  electrons,  has  found  an  explanation  for  its  own  mys- 
terious origin  and  being!    And  so  he  would  nevertheless  boldly 


Materialism's  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  39 

declare  in  the  words  of  Descartes,  Cogito,  ergo  sum! 

What,  then,  are  the  facts  in  the  case?    Is  life  an  evolution 

from  matter?  To  say  so,  without  any  definite  scientific  evi- 
dence whatever,  is  an  assumption  that  is  well-nigh  unpardon- 
able. Surely,  materialistic  scientists,  or  mechanists,  do  not 
have  it  all  their  own  way.  Among  philosophers,  with  but  few 
exceptions,  there  is  probably  no  great  name  in  Europe  or 
America — and  for  that  matter  there  practically  has  been  none 
— that  agrees  with  materialism  on  this  point.  To  find  a 
mechanist  among  the  world's  really  great  philosophers  is 
virtually  impossible.  Even  the  most  radically  skeptical  or  anti- 
Christian  see  in  life  more  than  matter  and  in  the  universe 
more  than  a  meaningless  jumble  of  material  or  electrical  par- 
ticles. Thus  Henri  Bergson  in  the  following  words  gives 
expression  to  what  must  be  evident  to  all  thinkers ;  namely,  that 
life  is  more  than  matter:  "As  the  smallest  grain  of  dust  forms 
part  of  our  entire  solar  sj^stem,  and  is  involved  along  with  it 
in  this  undivided  downward  movement  which  is  materiality  it- 
self, so  all  organized  beings  from  the  humblest  to  the  highest, 
from  the  first  origins  of  life  to  the  times  in  which  we  live,  and 
in  all  places  as  at  all  times,  do  but  demonstrate  to  our  eyes 
a  unique  impulse  contrary  to  the  movement  of  matter,  and,  in 
itself  indivisible"  {The  New  Philosophy  of  Henri  Bergson, 
LeRoy,  1913,  p.  99,  or  Creative  Evolution,  p.  270).  Thus, 
Bergson's  philosophy  unmistakably  regards  life  as  more  than 
matter. 

Nor  are  philosophers  alone  in  holding  life  not  to  be  from 
matter,  and  therefore  to  be  more  than  matter.  Many  of  the 
greatest  men  of  science  are  equally  convinced  of  this.  Thus 
this  same  truth,  especially  as  to  the  higher  manifestations  of  life 
in  thought,  feeling,  and  consciousness,  is  expressed  in  the  fol- 
lowing words  by  the  chemist  Robert  K.  Duncan:  "And  yet, 
however  unreasonable  it  may  appear,  and  unnecessary  and 
even  absurd,  this  law-ridden  living  matter  does  not  consist  of 
matter  alone.  There  are  tangled  up  in  it,  somehow — asso- 
ciated with  it — strange  things  called  perceivings,  thinkings, 
willings,  feelings,  and  consciousness,  things  that  are  not  mat- 
ter at  all.  There  are,  thus,  the  two  parts  of  us,  the  matter 
part  of  us  and  the  not-matter  part  of  us.  What  is  the  rela- 
tion between  them?  In  this,  of  course,  is  asked  the  riddle 
of  the  world"   {Some  Chemical  Problems  of  To-day,  79-80). 


40     '  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

And  no  less  an  authority  on  biology  than  Alfred  Russel 
Wallace  openly  recognized  the  transcendental  nature  of  life 
and  very  definitely  declared  it  to  be  impossible  to  define  it  in 
terms  of  physical  science.  Note  the  following  words:  "So 
marvellous  and  so  varied  are  the  phenomena  presented  by  liv- 
ing things,  so  completely  do  their  powers  transcend  those  of 
all  other  forms  of  matter  subjected  to  mechanical,  physical, 
or  chemical  laws,  that  biologists  have  vainly  endeavored  to 
find  out  what  is  at  the  bottom  of  their  strange  manifestations, 
and  to  give  precise  definitions,  in  terms  of  physical  science, 
of  what  'life'  really  is"  {The  World  of  Life,  191 1,  p.  3). 

It  would  seem  to  need  little  argument  to  prove  that  life 
cannot  be  the  result  of  the  interaction  of  molecules  or  atoms, 
as  it  is  totally  different  from  anything  in  such  supposed  cause. 
It  cannot  be  explained  in  terms  of  matter  and  energy.  If 
matter  were  only  a  mode  of  energy,  as  is  fast  being  held  by 
many,  a  materialistic  explanation  of  life  would  really  make 
it  a  form  of  energy.  And  life  has  been  so  regarded  by  many; 
and  this  theory  has  also  been  quite  fully  elaborated  by  some 
writers.  Haeckel,  in  true  consistency  with  his  monistic  philos- 
ophy, has  much  to  say  upon  this  point.  He  applies  the  law 
of  the  conservation  of  substance  to  the  phenomena  of  life  and 
mind  in  the  following  words:  "Not  only  the  growth  and 
the  nutrition  of  plants  and  animals,  but  even  their  functions 
of  sensation  and  movement,  their  sense-action  and  psychic  life, 
depend  on  the  conversion  of  potential  into  kinetic  energy,  and 
vice  versa.  This  supreme  law  dominates  also  those  elaborate 
performances  of  the  nervous  system*which  we  call,  in  the  higher 
animals  and  man,  'the  action  of  the  mind'  "  ( The  Riddle  of 
the  Universe,  p.  232). 

If  life  were  a  form  of  energy,  it  would  have  to  be  trans- 
mutable  into  other  forms,  and  other  forms  into  it,  according 
to  the  definition  accepted  by  materialists  themselves.  But  such 
transmutation  is  universally  acknowledged  to  be  impossible; 
therefore,  the  supposition  of  its  being  a  form  of  energy  can- 
not stand.  Indeed,  life,  as  we  know  it  in  all  its  phenomena,  is 
so  utterly  different  from  all  accepted  forms  of  energy,  that 
the  very  suggestion  that  it  is  merely  a  form  of  energy  is 
palpably  absurd.  Life  is  manifestly  self-directing  or  causal, 
especially  in  its  higher  forms,  while  all  forms  of  energy  are 


Materialism's  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  41 

merely  the  results  or  effects  of  operations  in  material  nature, 
according  to  fixed  or  definite  laws.  Indeed,  energy  in  all  its 
forms  is  acknowledged  to  be  a  mode  of  motion,  molar,  molecu- 
lar, atomic,  electronic,  etc.;  or  it  may  rather  be  regarded  as 
the  result  of  such  motion.  But  no  such  motion  can  be  trans- 
muted into,  or  result  in,  life. 

As  great  a  physical  scientist  as  Sir  Oliver  Lodge  has  been 
led  in  his  researches  more  and  more  definitely  to  hold  life 
to  be  a  distinctly  spiritual  entity,  totally  different  from  both 
matter  and  energy.  And,  even  though  in  some  of  his  philo- 
sophic speculations  as  to  certain  properties  of  the  soul  and 
powers  of  soul-communication  he  undoubtedly  arrived  at  un- 
warranted conclusions,  this  does  not  invalidate  the  authorita- 
tive value  of  the  following  explicit  statement:  "The  view 
concerning  Life  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  express  is  that 
it  is  neither  matter  nor  energy,  nor  even  a  function  of  mat- 
ter or  of  energy,  but  is  something  belonging  to  a  different  cate- 
gory; that  by  some  means,  at  present  unknown,  it  is  able  to 
interact  with  the  material  world  for  a  time,  but  that  it  can 
also  exist  in  some  sense  independently;  although  in  that  condi- 
tion of  existence  it  is  by  no  means  apprehensible  by  our  senses" 
(Life  and  Matter,  1905,  p.  1 19). 

In  a  somewhat  recent  philosophic  work  we  find  the  same 
position  very  definitely  taken  by  its  learned  author,  Professor 
Aliotta,  who  w^rites  thus:  "This  most  living  part,  which  is 
nearest  to  us,  which  stirs  within  us,  struggles,  suffers,  and  hopes 
amid  the  tumult  of  our  mind,  cannot  be  understood  by  means  of 
the  schemes  and  formulas  of  mechanical  science,  but  demands 
for  its  comprehension  another  and  higher  order  of  categories 
and  principles"  (The  Idealistic  Reaction  against  Science,  1914, 

p.  470). 

But  even  suppose  it  were  granted,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  life,  especially  in  its  lower  forms,  might  be  only 
the  result  of  mechanical,  chemical  and  electrical  processes, 
and  that  the  adaptations  of  so-called  instinct  mieht  be  caused  by 
mere  chemical  stimuli,  as  suggested  by  Dr.  Jacques  Loeb,  a 
creative  Power  would  still  have  to  be  postulated  back  of  all 
these  vital  processes  as  their  ultimate  cause.  These  very  phys- 
ical provisions  and  adaptations  would  imply  arrangement  for 
the  very  purposes  subserved,  and  therefore  a  cause  transcend- 
ing physical  nature  with  its  material  and  vital  processes.     If 


42  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

the  provision  of  electrical  ions  were  actually  found  to  be  so 
wonderful  and  so  marvelously  adapted  as  to  cause  muscular 
movement,  reproduction,  growth  and  other  mysterious  vital 
processes,  we  might  indeed  regard  the  mystery  of  life  to  be 
that  nearer  human  solution.  But  such  discovery  would  only 
deepen  the  mystery  on  the  other  side  of  our  discovery.  Its 
wonder  would  only  seem  all  the  more  wonderful,  and  its  cause 
all  the  more  truly  transcendent.  Indeed,  our  admiration  of 
the  wonderful  ultimate  causal,  or  creative  and  providing,  Per- 
sonality, would  only  be  enhanced  by  every  successive  step  in 
our  discovery  of  what  would  simply  in  such  case  constitute  His 
provided  methods  of  operation.  Hence,  the  believer  in  God 
need  never  fear  any  legitimate  results  of  scientific  research 
even  along  this  line,  although  we  are  not  in  the  least  anticipat- 
ing any  such  startling  real  discovery. 

3       THE    SUPPOSED     COSMOZOIC    ORIGIN    OF    TERRESTRIAL    LIFE 

EXAMINED 

There  have  been  and  still  are  some  eminent  scientists,  among 
them  Lord  Kelvin,  Helmholtz  and  Arrhenius,  who  would  have 
us  look  elsewhere  than  on  this  planet  for  life's  origin.  In 
apparent  seriousness  they  assume  that  the  beginnings  of  life 
here  were  wafted  upon  the  cooling  earth,  vast  geological  ages 
ago,  from  some  other  body  of  our  solar  system.  And  this  body 
may  presumably  have  received  it  previously  from  some  body 
in  the  stellar  universe  beyond. 

As  this  theory  has  been  favorably  received  by  some  great 
men  of  science,  although  it  does  not  strictly  belong  to  this 
chapter,  it  deserves  a  hearing  in  this  connection.  This  theory, 
in  a  general  way  called  that  of  panspermia  or  the  cos?nozoic 
hypothesis,  has  from  time  to  time  assumed  slightly  different 
forms.  But,  briefly  stated,  according  to  it,  life  on  this  and 
perhaps  on  other  worlds  began  when,  under  proper  condi- 
tions for  their  development,  germs  of  life  supposedly  floating 
through  space,  upon  being  picked  up,  found  a  proper  soil. 

There  were  some  quite  early  intimations  of  this  theory,  even 
before  the  theory  of  evolution  Vv'as  formulated  by  Darwin  and 
Wallace;  but  they  were  not  fully  developed  because  apparently 
not  specially  needed  to  explain  other  theories.  But  Dr.  H.  E. 
Richter  (1865)   in  trying  to  overcome  the  difficulties  involved 


MaterialtsTns  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  45 

in  Darwinism  to  account  for  primal  life  on  this  planet,  gave 
it  more  definite  form,  as  follows:  "The  infinite  space  is  filled 
with,  or  (more  correctly)  contains,  growing,  mature,  and 
dying  celestial  bodies.  By  mature  worlds  we  understand  those 
which  are  capable  of  sustaining  organic  life.  We  regard  the 
existence  of  organic  life  in  the  universe  as  eternal.  Life  has 
always  been  there;  it  has  always  propagated  itself  in  the  shape 
of  living  organisms,  from  cells  and  from  individuals  composed 
of  cells"  (Arrhenius:  Worlds  in  the  Making,  p.  218).  Thus 
life  is  supposed  to  have  existed  indefinitely  in  the  cosmic  dust 
within  the  interstellar  space. 

These  views  of  Richter  found  a  ready  adherent  in  the  great 
botanist  Ferdinand  Cohn  (1872).  Helmholtz,  in  his  Populare 
Wissenschaftliche  Vortrdge,  Volume  III.,  also  spoke  of  a  pos- 
sibility that  life  might  be  as  old  as  matter,  and  even  without 
beginning  or  eternal,  and  that  seeds  of  life  might  have  been 
carried  from  one  celestial  body  to  another  and  developed 
wherever  they  found  favorable  conditions.  And  Lord  Kelvin, 
in  an  address  before  the  British  Association,  Edinburgh,  1871, 
said,  "The  hypothesis  that  life  originated  on  this  earth  through 
moss-grown  fragments  from  the  ruins  of  another  world  may 
seem  wild  and  visionary;  all  I  maintain  is  that  it  is  not  un- 
scientific" {Nature,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  270).  And  again,  in  sub- 
stance he  declared  it  as  his  opinion,  that,  during  supposed  col- 
lisions, life  may  be  carried  off  from  life-bearing  bodies,  and 
that  in  meteoric  stones  as  seed  bearers  it  may  be  planted  on 
other  bodies. 

The  reader  must  not  fail,  however,  to  see  the  impossibility 
of  such  a  transmission,  because  of  the  far  too  intense  heat 
generated  by  the  flight  through  the  regions  of  the  atmosphere 
(from  15  to  40  miles  a  second)  of  such  meteoric  matter.  In- 
deed, the  heat  is  so  intense  that  it  fuses  the  largest  and  hardest 
meteoric  bodies.  But  very  few  of  the  myriads  of  such  bodies 
reach  the  earth,  as  in  their  passage  through  the  upper  air 
most  of  them  are  totally  reduced  to  gases  and  ashes.  Then, 
too,  the  time  required  would  be  too  long  for  life  to  persist. 
More  need  not,  therefore,  here  be  said  upon  this  point. 

According  to  the  Swedish  physicist  Svante  Arrhenius,  who 
accepts  the  theory  that  life  germs  or  minute  organisms  float  in 
space,  these  germs  are  pushed  against  other  heavenly  bodies 
by  radiation  pressure  of  sun  or  star.     We  might  say  by  way 


44  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

of  explanation  that,  as  light  pressure  varies  as  the  areas  of 
surfaces,  it  varies  as  the  squares  of  the  diameters;  and  as 
gravitation  varies  as  the  masses  of  the  volumes,  it  varies 
as  the  cubes  of  the  diameters.  And  therefore  the  ten- 
dency of  light  pressure  to  drive  a  particle  against  the  force 
of  gravitation — the  distances  being  equal^becomes  greater  the 
smaller  the  particle  is.  It  will  be  of  interest  to  note  that 
this  law  also  explains  the  phenomenon  of  a  comet's  tail  with 
its  great  velocity,  extending  in  a  direction  away  from  the 
sun. 

Arrhenius  calculates  that  it  would  require  only  fourteen 
months  of  radiation  pressure  for  such  an  organism,  upon  be- 
ing detached  from  the  earth,  to  reach  even  the  distant  planet 
Neptune.  And,  unless  arrested  in  its  journey  by  some  inter- 
vening body,  it  would  reach  our  nearest  stellar  neighbor,  re- 
garded as  the  centre  of  a  neighboring  solar  system,  in  nine 
thousand  years.  To  be  thus  driven  onward  by  radiation  pres- 
sure, he  finds,  according  to  deductions  of  Schwarzschild,  these 
supposed  organisms,  if  spherical,  could  be  .00016  mm. 
(.0000064  or  7^6^  inch)  in  diameter,  though  some  get 
slightly  different  results.  And  there  are  some  organisms,  such 
as  spores  of  bacteria,  known  to  be  but  little  larger  than  that. 
And,  as  he  points  out,  it  is  not  impossible  that  smaller  or- 
ganisms, not  yet  discovered,  do  exist,  positing  which,  this 
theory  might  be  supposed  to  become  workable.  At  least,  as 
far  as  the  mere  physical  possibility  is  concerned,  such  transmis- 
sion might  in  itself  not  be  inconceivable.  Arrhenius,  further, 
then  makes  the  following  summary  statement:  "In  this  man- 
ner life  may  have  been  transplanted  for  eternal  ages  from 
solar  system  to  solar  system  and  from  planet  to  planet  of  the 
same  system.  But  as  among  the  billions  of  grains  of  pollen 
which  the  wind  carries  away  from  a  large  tree — a  fir-tree,  for 
instance — only  one  may  on  an  average  give  birth  to  a  new 
tree,  thus  of  the  billions,  or  perhaps  trillions,  of  germs  which 
the  radiation  pressure  drives  out  into  space,  only  one  may 
really  bring  life  to  a  foreign  planet  on  which  life  had  not  yet 
arisen,  and  become  the  originator  of  living  beings  on  that 
planet"  (Worlds  in  the  Making,  p.  229).  In  the  closing  para- 
graph of  his  treatment  of   this  subject,   Arrhenius,   however, 


Materialism's  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  45 

even  himself  expresses  doubts  as  to  whether  any  actual  demon- 
stration of  his  theory  will  ever  be  made. 

It  is,  of  course,  readily  seen  that  there  are  obstacles  that 
would  enter  into  such  a  transmission  of  organisms,  that  it 
would  be  very  difficult  to  overcome,  such  as  temperature,  al- 
ready noted,  influence  of  the  various  radiations  of  light  and 
heat,  persistence  or  non-persistence  of  life,  etc.  Then,  too,  this 
theory  must  assume  that  these  organisms  are  detached  from 
a  planet  against  gravity,  etc.,  and  driven  into  space  by  some 
unexplained  power,  such  as  that  of  an  electric  discharge  of 
some  kind.  It  also  assumes  that  within  each  one  of  them 
are  all  the  potentialities  for  the  development  of  the  marvel- 
ously  complex  flora  and  fauna  of  a  fully  developed  world.  In- 
deed, it  supposes  that  the  forms  of  life  in  all  worlds  would 
be  the  same  under  the  same  or  similar  conditions. 

What  a  stretch  of  the  imagination  is  required  to  make  this 
theory  workable!  It  presupposes  the  matching  of  far-fetched 
theoretical  deductions  with  cosmic  facts.  The  fact  is,  that 
we  are  by  no  means  even  certain  whether  our  scientific  theories 
as  to  the  constitution  of  the  interstellar  ether,  and  even  as 
to  matter,  energy,  electricity  and  gravitation,  correspond 
to  reality.  But  of  this  we  shall  speak  later.  And,  in  examin- 
ing this  theory  in  relation  to  the  law  of  causality,  we  are 
amazed  at  the  amount  of  faith  required  in  every  step  from 
a  life-germ's  supposed  detachment  from  one  world  to  its  fully 
evolved  flora  and  fauna  in  another.  And  this  faith  must  be 
all  the  greater  when  it  stretches  after  such  a  migratory  or- 
ganism between  far  distant  stellar  systems.  Surely,  reason 
must  here  be  superseded  by  a  faith  that  is  far  more  diflScult  of 
acceptance  than  the  Christian's  faith  in  the  life-creating  and 
life-sustaining  God. 

As  a  mere  scientific  hypothesis,  the  theory  of  Arrhenius  is, 
however,  by  far  the  most  suggestive  and  plausible  one  on 
panspermia  that  has  yet  been  offered  in  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  life  on  this  planet  from  a  purely  physical  standpoint. 

4       THE    COSMOZOIC     HYPOTHESIS    INADEQUATE    TO     EXPLAIN 
life's    ULTIMATE    ORIGIN 

This  theory  of  panspermia,  in  its  various  modified  forms, 
may  seem  erudite  and  somewhat  satisfying  to  those  who  would 


46  Creation  Ex  Nihil 0 

pass  up  the  need  of  the  Almighty  in  accounting  for  the  uni- 
verse.    And  yet,  even  though  one  would  accept  it,  it  would 
not  solve  for  him  the  problem  of  life's  origin,  any  more  than 
does  the  theory  of  pure  materialism,  more  generally  so-called. 
But  even  this  theory  fails  of  its  apparent  purpose.     For  how- 
ever  far  backwards  in  time  or  outwards  in  space  one  might 
trace  the  origin  of  earth's  primal  germ  or  germs  of  life,  and 
however  great  the  number  of  successive  steps  in  these  supposed 
waftings  of  germ-life  from  body  to  body,  the  ever-recurring 
question  would  still  be.   Whence  that  most  outward  link  in 
the  succession  of  life's  chain?     In  implying  successive  trans- 
missions of  life,  it  necessarily  implies  a  first  transmission,  and 
a  first  or  primal  life  as  the  beginning  of  life's  supposed  in- 
definite chain.     And  if  it  be  contended  that  this  surely  must 
have  been  of  spontaneous  generation  from  molecular  or  atomic 
combinations  and  motions,  then  we  would  reply  that  this  brings 
us  no  nearer  to  the  solution  of  the  origin  of  life  than  if  we 
had  stayed  in  the  lap  of  mother  earth.     Indeed,  it  would  only 
complicate   the   problem   of   life's   origin.     And   to   hold   that 
such   dependent  life  has  existed   from  eternity,   as  Arrhenius 
and  some  others  do,  is  only  to  make  it  serve  as  a  premise  for 
reasoning;  but  such  a  premise  is  necessarily  erroneous,  as  ex- 
plained  elsewhere.      Moreover,   no   number   of   successive   re- 
movals of  life's  origin  from  body  to  body  could  push  it  back 
into  the  infinite  either  of  time  or  of  space,  as  no  number  of 
removals  or  steps,  however  far  or  long,  can  make  up  an  in- 
finite, as  we  shall  more  fully  show.     But  every  step  would 
bring  us  only  nearer   to   the   fijrst  step,   beyond  which   there 
could   be   no  other;   namely,   to   the   First   Cause  of   life,   an 
infinite  Will — as  we  hope  to  prove.     And,  of  course,  in  that 
ultimate  sense  of  life,  life  has  always  existed;  that  is,  in  Him 
Who  is  back  of  all  temporal  life  in  the  universe — whatever 
the   theory  of   life — the  life-giving,   life-creating   Life   of   the 
Cause  of  all. 

Moreover,  the  presence  or  operation  of  that  Life  or  Will 
at  each  successive  step  would  be  no  less  real,  though  perhaps 
less  direct,  than  at  the  origination  and  starting  on  its  sup- 
posed long  journey  of  life  in  its  primal  germ — according  to 
this  theory — as  will  be  clearly  shown  later.  Its  very  trans- 
mission from  body  to  body  would  even  imply  the  energy  of  the 
great  Energizer  or  Transmitter,  the  source  of  all  energy.     At 


Materialism's  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  47 

every  step  and  at  every  point  of  the  supposed  transmissions, 
wt  should  be  in  the  presence,  and  feel  the  pulse-beats,  of  the 
life  of  Him  Who  is  immanent  in — as  also  He  must  neces- 
sarily transcend — all  nature  and  everything  within  it.  Himself 
the  only  ultimate  life,  as  He  is  life's  only  source.  Even  in 
such  a  consideration  the  v^'ords  of  the  Psalmist  are  true, 
"Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  spirit?  or  whither  shall  I  flee 
from  thy  presence?  If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  art 
there:  if  I  make  my  bed  in  hell,  behold,  thou  art  there"  (Ps. 
139:7-8). 

5       THE    THEORY    OF     SPONTANEOUS    GENERATION     EXAMINED 
AND    FOUND    INADEQUATE 

We  should  not  need  in  this  connection  to  discuss  this 
point  as  to  the  origin  of  life  much  further,  especially  as  to 
the  once  partly  accepted  doctrine  of  spontaneous  generation  or 
abiogenesisy  or  even  of  an  artificial  production  of  life.  We 
should  say,  however,  that,  since  its  explosion  by  such  men 
as  Pasteur,  Liebig,  Tyndall,  et  al.,  this  theory  would  now  have 
gone  into  "innocuous  desuetude"  as  a  scientific  hj'pothesis  were 
it  not  for  its  revival  by  men  like  Jacques  Loeb,  et  al.  Of  one 
thing,  however,  we  are  certain,  that  life  from  life,  and  all 
life  indirectly,  and  primal  life  directly,  from  the  creative  power 
of  an  Infinite  Will — yea  from  Him  Who  Is  Life  indeed — is 
an  intelligible  explanation  of  this  otherwise  inexplicable  phe- 
nomenon. Chemistry  cannot  produce  it,  nor  can  philosophy 
explain  it.  It  exists  and  challenges  explanation  as  the  great- 
est and  most  solemn  of  all  facts.  And  if  It  be  held,  as  has 
been  asserted,  that  the  whole  material  cosmos  is  itself  one 
vast  chemical  and  vital  laboratory.  In  which  every  phenome- 
non of  nature.  Including  life,  is  produced  or  generated,  then 
even  that  very  assertion  itself  would  imply  a  mighty  immaterial 
ever-operating  Chemist. 

The  testimony  of  a  few  recognized  men  of  science  on  this 
point  should  give  double  force  to  our  argument.  Lord  Kelvin 
expressed  himself  very  emphatically  against  the  theory  that, 
under  certain  meteorological  conditions  in  the  past,  dead  mat- 
ter might  have  been  crystallized  or  have  run  together,  or 
might  now  run  together,  into  "germs  of  life"  or  "organic 
cells"  or  "protoplasm."     So,  in  his  Preface  to  Worlds  in  the 


4^  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

Making,  page  xiv.,  Arrhenlus,  whom  we  have  already  quoted, 
who  of  course  holds  that  life  has  existed  from  eternity,  also 
expresses  himself  very  decidedly  against  the  theory  of  spon- 
taneous^ generation,  as  follows :  "Some  kind  of  'spontaneous 
generation,'  origination  of  life  from  inorganic  matter,  had 
been  acquiesced  in.  But  just  as  the  dreams  of  a  spontaneous 
generation  of  energy,  i.  e.,  of  a  perpetuum  mobile — have  been 
dispelled  by  the  negative  results  of  all  experiments  in  that 
direction,  just  in  the  same  way  we  shall  have  to  give  up  the 
idea  of  a  spontaneous  generation  of  life  after  all  the  repeated 
disappointments  in  this  field  of  investigation."  And  no  less 
emphatic  against  the  artificial  production  of  life  are  the  fol- 
lowing words  of  Sir  Oliver  Lodge:  "Many  have  been  the 
attempts  to  generate  life  de  novo,  by  packing  together  suitable 
materials  and  keeping  them  pleasantly  warm  for  a  long  time; 
but,  where  all  germs  of  pre-existing  life  have  rigorously  been 
excluded,  the  attempt  hitherto  has  been  a  failure:  so  far,  no 
life  has  made  its  appearance  under  observation,  except  from 
antecedent  life"   {Life  and  Matter,  1 905,  p.   171). 

Indeed,  even  E.  A.  Schafer,  the  famous  professor  of  physi- 
ology at  Edinburgh,  though  a  pronounced  advocate  of  the 
materialistic  theory  of  life,  considers  the  theory  of  spontaneous 
generation,  in  its  older  form  at  least,  untenable.  Thus  in  his 
Presidential  Address  before  the  British  Association,  Dundee, 
Sept.  5,  19 1 2,  he  expressed  himself  on  this  point  as  follows: 
"I  am  myself  so  entirely  convinced  of  the  accuracy  of  the 
results  which  Pasteur  obtained  .  .  .  that  I  do  not  hesitate  to 
believe,  If  living  torulae  or  mycelia  are  exhibited  to  me  in 
flasks  which  had  been  subjected  to  prolonged  boiling  after 
being  hermetically  sealed,  that  there  has  been  some  fallacy 
either  in  the  premises  or  in  the  carrying  out  of  the  operation. 
The  appearance  of  organisms  In  such  flasks  would  not  furnish 
to  my  mind  proof  that  they  were  the  result  of  spontaneous 
generation.  Assuming  no  fault  in  manipulation  or  fallacy  in 
observation,  I  should  find  it  simpler  to  believe  that  the  germs 
of  such  organisms  have  resisted  the  effects  of  prolonged  heat 
than  that  they  became  generated  spontaneously"  {Nature,  Vol. 
XC,  p.  10). 

It  might  be  said,  however,  that,  while  Prof.  Schafer  rejects 
the  theory  of  a  so-called  spontaneous  generation  of  life,  he 
believes  It  not  Impossible  to  produce  life  by  artificial  or  chemical 


Materialism's  Explanation  of  the  "Universe  Inadequate  49 

means.  And,  In  speaking  of  the  supposed  ultimate  origin  of 
living  matter  from  lifeless  material,  he  was  nevertheless  moved 
to  say,  "In  spite  of  the  dictum  omne  vivum  e  vivo,  there  w^as 
certainly  a  period  In  the  history  of  the  earth  when  our  planet 
could  have  supported  no  kind  of  life,  as  we  understand  the 
word;  there  can,  therefore,  exist  no  difference  of  opinion  upon 
this  point  among  scientific  thinkers."  And  this  Is  the  natural 
and  necessary  conclusion  of  materialism  as  to  the  origin  of 
life.  Indeed,  If  the  existence  of  a  creative  Will  back  of  nature 
is  denied,  what  other  alternative  as  to  life's  origin  could  be 
possible?  Thus,  though  one  may  reject  the  older  form  of 
the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation,  unless  he  accepts  the 
factor  of  a  creative  Will  to  make  the  origin  of  life  possible, 
he  must  assume  that  life  at  some  time,  under  favorable  condi- 
tions, originated  from  some  evolutionary  process  in  Inorganic 
nature.  As  the  Impossibility  of  this  has  already  been  pointed 
out  we  shall  not  further  discuss  It. 

And  If  the  other  horn  of  the  dilemma  were  seized — that 
dependent  life  had  no  beginning,  as  is  the  case  with  some 
of  the  advocates  of  the  theory  of  panspermia — the  implication 
would  be  that  there  must  be  two  eternal,  and  even  dependent, 
entities,  matter  and  life.  But,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  next 
chapter,  there  can  be  only  one  eternal  entity,  and  that  must 
be  a  spiritual  essence,  or  Life  absolute. 

Moreover,  to  continue  our  consideration  of  a  supposed  pos- 
sible natural  origin  of  life,  we  hold  that,  even  though  a  case 
of  so-called  spontaneous  generation  were  In  the  future  to  be 
discovered,  that  should  shake  no  man's  faith  in  the  necessary 
existence  of  a  Creator  as  the  ultimate  Cause.  Such  supposed 
spontaneous  generation  would  no  more  be  really  spontaneous 
than  any  so-called  accidental  event  really  occurs  by  accident. 
Law  or  method,  the  operations  of  secondary  causes  endowed 
with  the  necessary  potentialities  for  the  production  of  life, 
would  no  less  be  back  of  such  generated  life,  if  we  could 
trace  the  same.  And  such  generation  would,  therefore,  be 
only  a  creating  or  bringing  forth  by  processes  or  methods  of 
the  Creator  through  secondary  causes  not  thitherto  known, 
but  perhaps  even  yet  operative  in  nature.  And,  although  the 
assertion  could  easily  be  misinterpreted,  even  If  by  chemical 
or  artificial  means  life  could  thus  be  produced,  it  would  have 
to  be  in  accordance  with  methods  and  by  potencies  which  the 


50  Creation  Ex  Nihiio 

Author  of  nature  Himself  placed  there.  Man  would  be  dis- 
covering only  a  hitherto  unknown  method  of  His  operations,  or 
reading  another  thought  after  Him  in  His  creation.  But, 
while  such  a  discovery  should  shake  no  one's  faith,  we  are 
not  in  the  least  considering  its  possibility. 

Indeed,  it  would  appear  as  unlikely  that  life  can  spring 
from,  or  be  generated  by,  matter,  as  that  matter  can  spring 
from,  or  be  generated  by,  life.  This  latter  should  seem  to 
be,  if  anything,  the  more  natural  hypothesis,  especially  if  life 
be  viewed  as  a  distinct  and  higher  entity,  totally  different 
from  matter.  And  yet,  this  is  not  true  even  as  to  matter. 
But  as  to  the  mere  question  whether  life  is  the  cause  or  the 
effect  of  organization,  it  is  surely  the  former  rather  than 
the  latter.  Thus  life  would  antedate  organization,  and  there- 
fore organized  matter.  And  in  the  application  of  this  thought 
to  our  thesis  it  is  readily  seen,  as  will  more  fully  be  shown 
in  our  next  chapter,  that  life  or  spirit,  as  the  First  Cause,  must 
have  existed  before  matter,  and  must  therefore  have  existed 
from  eternity.  And,  of  course,  in  its  final  analysis  It  might 
in  a  sense  be  said  that  matter  emanates  from  or  is  preceded 
by  ultimate  Life,  the  creative  Source  both  of  all  matter  and 
of  all  secondary  or  derived  life,  as  well  as  of  all  energy  in 
the  universe. 


b      THE    THEORY   OF    NATURE   AS    A    LIVING    ORGANISM    INADE- 
QUATE   TO   ACCOUNT    FOR    LIFE 

There  are  men  who  hold  that,  the  material  universe  Itself 
is  one  vast  living  organism  and  that  everything  within  it  is 
alive,  probably  as  the  result  of  physical  operations.  Thus 
all  matter  would  be  permeated  with  life;  and  motion  or  vibra- 
tion would  be  its  manifestation.  But  even  this  fanciful  theory, 
which  does,  however,  not  strictly  come  under  materialism,  can 
no  more  explain  life  and  its  origin  than  any  other — no  more 
than  it  can  explain  even  matter  and  Its  origin.  If  the 
universe  were  all,  as  it  would  have  to  be  unless  It  had  been 
created,  It  would  have  to  be  self-existent  and  absolute.  But 
as  it  is  finite  and  can,  therefore,  not  be  all,  as  we  shall  show, 
It  could  not  be  self-existent  and  absolute.  And,  if  it  were  con- 
ceded that  it  Is  not  all.  It  would  have  to  be  a  created  universe: 
and  thus  our  point  would  need  no  further  defense,  as  that  is 


MaterialisTns  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  51 

our  contention.  Then,  moreover,  all  else  as  to  the  origin 
of  matter,  energy,  life  and  mind,  might  as  well  be  acknowl- 
edged by  the  objector.  If  it  was  created,  then  no  matter  how 
long  ago,  it  must  have  been  a  creation  out  of  nothing.  And, 
no  matter  by  what  processes  it  came  into  its  present  cosmic 
form,  it  also  would  have  had  to  be  directly  or  indirectly  by 
the  same  Power  by  which  it  had  first  been  called  into  its 
primal  being.  And  that  Power  that  created  it  and  fashioned 
it  into  a  cosmos  was  its  Creator,  the  Being  Whom  the  Chris- 
tian Scriptures  reveal  as  God.  Hence,  even  this  fanciful 
theory  of  life  and  the  universe  must  fall. 

Again,  there  is  a  modified  form  of  the  above  theory;  namely, 
that  the  life  of  the  universe  is  the  indwelling  Deity.  Thus, 
in  the  language  of  poetry, 

"All  are  but  parts  of  one  stupendous  whole, 
Whose  body  Nature  is  and  God  the  soul." 
(Pope:  Essay  on  Man.) 

The  elements  of  such  a  theory  appear  already  in  some  of 
the  writings  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton.  And  since  his  day  there 
have  been  various  speculations  along  this  line:  and  this  is, 
of  course,  a  very  delightful  and  fruitful  field  for  such  specula- 
tion. Very  suggestive  and  rather  beautiful  is  the  somewhat 
modified  form  of  such  a  theory,  as  expressed  by  Sir  Oliver 
Lodge  in  the  following  words:  "It  has  been  surmised  .  .  . 
that  just  as  the  corpuscles  and  atoms  of  matter,  in  their  in- 
tricate movements  and  relations,  combine  to  form  the  brain- 
cell  of  a  human  being;  so  the  cosmic  bodies,  the  planets  and 
suns  and  other  groupings  of  the  ether,  may  perhaps  combine 
to  form  something  corresponding,  as  it  were,  to  the  brain- 
cell  of  some  transcendent  Mind"  {Life  and  Matter,  p.  97)* 
Sir  Isaac  Newton  also  suggested  this  universe  brain-cell  idea 
for  the  indwelling  Deity. 

Though  this  theory  also  does  not  really  come  under  ma- 
terialism as  such,  nevertheless,  because  of  its  relation  to  the 
above,  we  shall  briefly  speak  of  it  here.  As  Poetry  this  theory 
has  some  attraction,  but  as  philosophy,  weighed  in  the  balance 
of  matter-of-fact  reason,  it  is  readily  found  wanting.  In  a 
sense  this  is  only  a  refined  pantheism.  According  to  this 
theory,  man  would  really  be  a  part  of  God.    And,  of  course, 


52  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

in  so  far  as  man  Is  a  sinner,  God  would  be  a  sinner.  Thus 
God  would  not  be  perfect  nor  absolute,  while  absoluteness 
and  perfection  are  necessary  attributes  of  God.  But  there  is 
another  fallacy  in  this  theory;  namely,  that,  if  its  God  were 
conterminous  with  the  universe,  as  its  advocates  hold,  He 
would  necessarily  be  finite,  because  the  universe  is  finite,  as 
we  shall  demonstrate.  The  finiteness  of  such  a  God  was  even 
already  implied  in  the  statement  above  that  He  would  not 
be  perfect  nor  absolute.  And,  if  it  be  contended  that  space 
relations  could  not  be  ascribed  to  such  a  spiritual  entity 
(which  in  a  sense  is  true),  so  as  to  speak  of  Him  as  finite 
because  confined  within  a  finite  universe,  then  we  must  re- 
mind the  advocates  of  this  theory  that  their  fallacy  lies  in  thus 
confining  Him,  and  that  they  thus  ascribe  to  this  God-soul  a 
finite  body,  or  a  finite  brain.  A  God  as  the  soul  of  the  finite 
universe  as  His  body  or  brain  would  not  only  not  be  infinite 
nor  absolute,  but  such  a  conception  would  be  a  near  approach 
to  a  monstrosity.  This  form  of  the  theory,  therefore,  also  is 
found  wanting. 

7       MATERIALISM'S     NECESSARY     FATALISM     FATAL    TO     ITSELF 

Another  fact  that  is  destructive  of  the  purely  materialistic 
explanation  of  nature  Is  its  necessary  fatalism.  If  every- 
thing were  caused  by  inflexible  laws  working  with  deadly 
precision,  then  all  things,  including  even  all  human  thoughts 
and  acts,  would  be  what  they  are  by  unavoidable  necessity. 
There  would,  therefore,  be  no  moral  action  nor  any  moral  ac- 
countability. Even  murder  and  every  other  wrong,  every 
Impulse  of  love  and  every  deed  of  progress,  every  creation  of 
the  imagination  bodied  forth  in  poetry  or  fiction  and  every 
hope  and  aspiration  of  the  soul,  as  well  as  every  thought  and 
adoration  of  a  Deity,  would  be  the  result  of  law.  Hence,  it 
is  only  to  be  expected  that  materialists,  like  Laplace  and 
Haeckel,   are  determinlsts. 

This  determinism  is  seen  in  expressions  by  Haeckel,  al- 
ready quoted.  To  these  we  shall  add  the  following  very 
definite  declaration:  "Another  psychological  dogma,  the  be- 
lief in  man's  free-will,  is  equally  Inconsistent  with  the  truth 
of  evolution.  .  .  .  Theoretically,  determinism,  or  the  doctrine 
of  the  necessary  character  of  our  volitions,  was  established  long 


MaterialisTns  Explanation  of  the  Universe  Inadequate  53 

ago"   {Last  Words  on  Evolution,  pp.   103-104). 

What  confusion  in  the  moral  order  of  the  world  such  a 
theory  naturally  implies!  Why  commend  or  punish;  why  love 
or  hate;  why  delight  in  the  creations  of  the  imagination  or 
in  the  material  progress  of  the  race;  why  even  strive  to  know 
and  grow— if  all  things  must  come  to  pass  by  a  fatalistic  ne- 
cessity? Ah,  we  hear  the  whispered  answer,  Because  these 
acts  themselves  are  predetermined  by  inflexible  laws!  Well, 
then,  if  so  be  that  all  things  are  from  necessity,  what  is  the 
cause  of  such  necessity — what  is  it  that  necessitates?  Surely, 
then,  as  the  soul  by  necessity  conceives  of  and  worships  a 
Deity,  that  Deity  must  by  the  same  necessity  be  a  reality. 
Or  else,  by  one  act  of  necessity  there  would  be  a  God  and 
by  another  act  of  the  same  necessity  there  would  be  no  God. 
Thus  necessity  would  by  necessity  nullify  or  contradict  it- 
self, or  there  would  have  to  be  two  necessities  in  eternal  an- 
tagonism. The  same  necessity  would  issue  in  murder  and  its 
condemnation  and  punishment.  It  would  in  one  individual  ap- 
prove, and  in  another  disapprove.  In  one  it  would  assert  the 
existence  of  God,  and  in  another  deny  His  existence.  In  one 
it  would  hold  to  the  philosophy  of  necessity  or  materialistic 
determinism,  and  in  another  it  would  reject  that  philosophy. 
And,  supposedly,  this  argument  of  ours  against  materialistic 
necessity  would  necessarily  be  an  act  of  necessity. 

Any  such  philosophy  is  thus  seen  to  be  self-contradictory  and 
self-destructive,  and  therefore  not  worthy  of  even  further  con- 
sideration. Surely,  this  alone  should  be  an  unanswerable  argu- 
ment against  the  materialistic  explanation  of  the  universe,  as 
logically  issuing  in  the  self-contradictory  and  absurd  doctrine 
of  necessity  as  applied  to  man. 

WTiile  there  is  some  foundation  in  nature's  unerring  laws  for 
such  a  doctrine  of  necessity  as  to  the  operations  of  nature,  no 
one  has  any  right  to  claim  for  it  universal  application  to  the 
exclusion  of  an  immanent  and  transcendent  creative  and  direct- 
ing Deity,  and  to  volition  of  the  designing  human  mind.  As 
the  will  of  man  transcends  the  ordinary  operations  of  nature, 
so  must  some  supreme  Will  transcend  the  operations  of  the 
universal  whole. 

Moreover,  to  declare  that  an  act  of  a  Deity  in  creation  no 
less  implies  necessity  in  all  creatures,  is  to  deny  freedom  of 
action  to  such  a  Being  Himself.     Or  else  it  assumes  that  He 


54  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

must  have  created  all  things  with  an  imposed  necessity.  It 
should  be  sufficient  to  say  that  a  tree  or  absolute  Creator  can 
surely  create  beings  with  power  of  choice,  and  therefore  morally 
accountable.  And  this  is  exactly  what  the  Mosaic  account  of 
creation  declares  He  did  with  reference  to  man — whom  He 
created  In  His  own  image. 

Thus,  to  him  who  would  explain  God  away  from  His  uni- 
verse and  rely  solely  upon  his  own  reason  for  the  solution  of 
the  great  question  of  reality  and  origin,  there  arises  difficulty 
after  difficulty  of  ever-increasing  magnitude.  Sphinx-like  the 
universe  stands  before  him  with  ever-increasing  mystery,  be- 
fore which  the  pride  of  man  might  well  bow  and  submit  to 
the  Revelation  of  the  eternal  Word. 


CHAPTER  III 

THREE  POSTULATES  AS  TO  A  FIRST  AND  NEC- 
ESSARILY  ETERNAL  EXISTENCE 

In  our  last  chapter  we  pointed  out  some  of  the  fallacies 
in  the  arguments  in  defense  of  materialism.  In  this  chapter 
we  shall  begin  to  consider  the  subject  rather  from  the  positive 
side,  at  the  same  time  further  answering  objections  and  argu- 
ments of  those  who  do  not  accept  the  doctrine  of  a  creation 
out  of  nothing. 

The  objection  has  been  made  that  the  Christian,  basing  his 
faith  upon  the  Scriptures,  also  assumes  something  as  a  start- 
ing point;  namely,  what  he  calls  God,  as  over  against  the 
materialist's  eternal  matter.  Let  us  now  proceed  to  analyze 
this  objection  and  point  out  its  total  invalidity.  By  a  process 
of  elimination,  virtually  amounting  to  a  demonstration,  we 
hope  thus  to  show  that  the  universe  must  necessarily  have 
been  God-created. 

There  can  be  only  three  postulates  as  to  a  possibly  first 
and  therefore  necessarily  eternal  existence.  One  may  postulate 
the  eternal  existence  of  mind  or  spirit  alone,  or  the  Christian's 
God,  as  the  Intelligent  First  Cause  Who  created  all  things. 
One  might  postulate  the  eternal  existence  of  matter  alone, 
from  which  the  universe  arose  by  a  supposed  indefinite  series 
of  developments.  Or,  one  might  postulate  the  eternal  co- 
existence of  both  spirit,  or  God,  and  matter.  But  in  each 
case  he  must  postulate  an  eternal  existence;  or  else  he  would 
find  himself  in  the  dilemma  that  that  first  existence,  which- 
ever it  be,  had  Its  being  begun  In  time,  sprung  from  nothing, 
and  therefore  without  any  cause. 

I     POSTULATE  OF  ETERNAL  CO-EXISTENCE  OF 
SPIRIT  AND   MATTER  UNTENABLE 

Taking  the  last  postulate,  that  of  the  eternal  co-existence 
of  mind  or  spirit   (God)    and  matter,  it  will  readily  be  seen 

55 


56   '  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

that,  regarding  matter  merely  as  a  unitj  such  would  give  us 
two  first  causes  instead  of  one,  and  these  two  totally  different. 
Then,  too,  it  would  be  making  matter  an  absolute  existence 
together  with  spirit,  thus  giving  us  two  absolutes,  and  these 
two  totally  different.  But,  by  the  very  nature  of  an  abso- 
lute, there  can  be  only  one  absolute,  or  else  each  would  have 
to  have  a  necessary  relation  to  the  other  and  would  therefore, 
in  being  thus  relative,  cease  to  be  absolute.  Moreover,  to 
make  matter  an  absolute  would  be  making  that  absolute  which 
by  its  very  nature  must  be  finite,  as  we  shall  show  in  our  next 
two  chapters.  But  no  finite  can  be  absolute,  for  finiteness 
implies  limitation;  and  what  is  limited  is  relative  and  not  abso- 
lute. And,  if  it  be  contended  that  matter  is  infinite,  then 
we  should  have  tu'o  infinites  as  causes,  and  these  two  different 
and  in  a  sense  mutually  excluding  each  other,  which  is  an 
impossibility. 

But  it  might  be  argued  that  matter  need  not  necessarily  be 
absolute  or  independent,  but  that  God  or  spirit  and  matter 
might  be  regarded  as  having  existed  from  eternity,  related  as 
absolute  or  independent  and  relative,  dependent  or  conditioned. 
But  this  again  would  be  a  contradiction.  For,  then,  a  con- 
ditioned or  dependent  would  be  made  eternal,  whereas  the 
very  terms  conditioned  and  dependent  imply  a  time  or  cause 
or  purpose  of  conditioning.  The  term  eternal  can  therefore 
not  be  applied  to  a  dependent  or  conditioned.  So  the  terms 
conditioned  and  dependent  cannot  be  applied  to  an  eternal. 
Therefore,  to  speak  of  conditioned  matter  as  eternal,  In  con- 
junction with  spirit,  would  be  self-contradictory.  Therefore, 
matter,  thus  related,  cannot  be  eternal,  unless  it  could  be  proved 
also  to  be  unconditioned  and  infinite,  which  Is  impossible,  as  we 
shall  see.  And,  even  if  it  were  unconditioned  and  infinite,  it 
alone  could  be  so,  as  seen  above.  This  last  postulate,  that  of 
the  eternal  co-existence  of  spirit,  or  God,  and  matter,  must, 
therefore,  necessarily  fall. 

II     POSTULATE    OF    ETERNAL    EXISTENCE    OF 
MATTER  ALONE  UNTENABLE 

Taking,  now,  the  second  postulate,  that  of  the  eternal  exist- 
ence of  matter  alone,  we  shall  find  the  arguments  against  this 
postulate  equally  unanswerable. 


Three  Postulates  57 

That  something  has  always  existed  is  a  self-evident  truth. 
We  know  that  something  does  now  exist,  ourselves  included. 
We  know  also  that  something  cannot  come  from  nothing,  for 
there  can  be  no  effect  without  a  cause,  and  one  that  is  adequate. 
Therefore,  because  the  universe  exists  and  is  governed  by  ap- 
parently unvarying  laws,  there  have  been  thinkers  in  all  ages 
who  have  considered  the  universe  itself,  or  at  least  its  material 
basis,  to  be  that  eternal  something.  If  that  were  so,  it  could 
not  be  an  effect;  and,  therefore,  for  it  there  would  have  been 
no  cause.  And  to  this  belief  many  of  the  discoveries  of  mod- 
ern science  have  added  their  apparent  testimony.  Thus  the 
law  of  the  conservation  of  matter  and  energy,  as  indeed  the 
general  uniformity  of  nature  with  her  myriad  laws,  has  gone 
a  long  way  toward  establishing  some  scientific  philosophers 
and  philosophic  scientists  in  what  might  be  called  their  scien- 
tific faith  of  the  eternity  of  matter.  Thus,  in  the  Berlin  Dis- 
cussions, February,  1907,  Prof.  Plate  was  moved  to  make  the 
following  declaration:  "We  scientists  maintain  that  matter 
exists,  that  nothing  is  formed  out  of  nothing,  and  that  matter 
is  everlasting.  We  cannot  accept  the  theory  that  matter  was 
created,  and  if  we  did  accept  it,  we  should  be  no  better  off. 
We  are  modest  enough  to  dispense  with  a  further  solution  of 
this  problem"  (Wasmann:    The  Problem  of  Evolution ,  p.  96). 

It,  of  course,  goes  without  saying  that  this  is  merely  an 
assumption,  but  that  it  proves  nothing.  The  implied  reason- 
ing seems  logical  enough ;  but,  as  it  is  based  upon  unproved 
premises,  its  conclusions  are  untrustworthy.  In  short,  it  is 
a  begging  of  the  question ;  but  the  solution  of  the  question  is 
acknowledged  to  be  bej^ond  this  scientist's  reach.  Such  a  con- 
clusion on  the  part  of  this  and  other  materialistic  scientists 
is,  of  course,  an  inference  from  the  so-called  law  of  the  con- 
servation of  substance,  as  comprehending  both  matter  and 
energy.  It  is,  therefore,  quite  a  natural  conclusion,  viewed 
from  the  merely  human  angle  and  from  this  mere  point  of 
time  and  space  in  the  universal  all.  But  whether  this  con- 
clusion would  hold  from  the  view-point  of  eternity  and  before 
the  comprehensive  whole  is  another  question. 

According  to  the  law  of  the  conservation  or  indestructibility 
of  matter,  proposed  by  A.  L.  Lavoisier  in  1789,  the  amount 
of  matter  in  the  universe  is  supposedly  a  constant  quantity, 
however  it  may  change  or  vary  in  form.     Thus  the  mass  of 


58  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

the  universe  cannot  by  known  artificial  means  be  added  to  nor 

can  it  be  reduced;  or,  as  it  is  generally  expressed,  "Mass  can 
neither  be  created  nor  destroyed."  So,  according  to  the  law 
of  the  conservation  or  indestructibility  of  energy,  proposed  by 
Robert  Mayer  in  1842,  and  more  fully  developed  by  different 
scientists  since,  the  sum  of  all  the  forms  of  energy  in  the  uni- 
verse is  a  constant  quantity,  regardless  of  its  various  forms  and 
transmutations,  or  "Energy  can  neither  be  created  nor  de- 
stroj'ed."  This  should  also,  of  course,  be  modified  by  adding, 
by  any  artificial  means  known  to  man. 

That  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  conservation  of  matter  and 
of  energy  no  one  attempts  to  deny.  But  it  must  be  em- 
phasized that  this  conservation  necessarily  belongs,  and  is  lim- 
ited, to  that  in  which  it  exists;  namely,  the  present  order  of 
nature,  in  that  part  more  especially  known  to  man.  For  the 
unerring  operations  of  a  closed  system,  it  must  scientifically  be 
considered  as  sufficiently  true  as  a  postulate  for  reason  and  ac- 
tion in  the  infinitesimal  span  of  human  life.  Thus,  in  the 
words  of  James  Weir,  speaking  of  the  law  of  the  conservation 
of  energy,  "The  finger  of  Nature  ever  points  to  closed  energy 
circuits,  to  the  earth  as  a  complete  and  conservative  system  in 
which  energy,  mutable  to  the  highest  degree  with  respect  to 
its  plurality  of  form,  attains  to  the  perfection  of  permanence 
in  its  essential  character  and  amount"  {The  Energy  System  of 
the  Universe  J  19 12,  p.  200). 

But  Vv'hether  this  law  of  the  conservation  of  matter  and 
of  energy  is  true  for  the  whole  universe,  and  for  even  a 
closed  system  for  all  time,  is  far  from  established.  Science 
has  not  yet  furnished  us  with  sufficient  data  to  determine  the 
universality  of  this  law,  as  is  more  and  more  being  acknowl- 
edged. Thus,  Dr.  S.  Lawrence  Bigelow,  after  having  in  a 
few  sentences  expressed  the  law  of  the  conservation  of  energy, 
makes  the  following  statement :  "These  sentences  are  open 
to  objections,  stating  as  fact  more  than  we  really  know  to  be 
fact.  We  do  not  know  how  much  energy  there  is  in  the  uni- 
verse. We  do  not  even  know  how  many  different  kinds  of 
energy  there  are.  We  do  not  know  what  conditions  prevail 
on  other  planets  or  fixed  stars,  or  beyond  the  fixed  stars,  yet 
within  that  broad  term  we  use  so  glibly  the  'universe.'  We 
ought  to  append  to  these  statements  a  modifying  phrase  such 
as,  *as  far   as  our  experiences  have  taught  us'  "    ( Theoretical 


Three  Postulates  59 

and  Physical  Chemistry,  1912,  p.  26).  Of  similar  import 
are  his  words  in  connection  with  the  statement  of  the  law  of 
the  conservation  of  mass,  as  follows  "These  statements  are 
open  to  the  same  objections  as  those  brought  against  the  state- 
ments of  the  law  of  the  conservation  of  energy.  They  say 
more  than  we  really  know,  although  they  are  based  upon  an 
enormous  number  of  experiments.  The  same  qualifying  phrase 
should  be  added,  'as  far  as  our  experience  has  taught  us'  " 
{Ibid.,  p.  29). 

This  law  of  conservation  in  its  wider  sense  is,  moreover,  not 
necessarily  so  absolute  even  here  as  to  preclude  the  possibility 
of  being  set  aside  for  the  annihilation  of  the  present  order; 
nor  does  it  afford  any  real  evidence  for  the  eternal  existence  of 
that  order  in  the  past.  These  and  other  laws  of  nature  per- 
tain to  the  existing  universe.  If  the  universe  had  a  begin- 
ning— as  we  hope  to  prove — they  must  necessarily  have  begun 
either  with  the  universe  or  at  a  later  stage  of  its  existence. 
And  if  the  universe  will  have  an  end,  as  is  only  too  manifest 
from  its  own  evidence — as  we  shall  see — these  laws  must  surely 
end  with  it.  Their  presence  in  nature  is,  therefore,  not  the 
slightest  evidence  either  that  the  universe  was  eternal  and  un- 
created in  the  past  or  that  it  will  be  eternal  and  indestructible 
in  the  future.  And,  in  the  face  of  the  overwhelming  proofs  to 
the  contrary,  they  constitute  only  an  argument  of  straw  in  an 
attempt  to  reason  out  of  existence  the  Almighty  Will  before 
and  above  and  beyond  the  material  universe,  by  Whom  that 
universe  exists.  These  and  other  laws  of  nature  thus  afford 
no  evidence  whatever  that  matter  is  eternal,  or  that  it  either  is, 
or  is  the  cause  of,  all  existence.  There  are  several  impossible, 
even  contradictory,  things  implied  in  this  postulate,  in  the  light 
of  which  it  is  totally  untenable,  as  we  shall  now  proceed  to 
show. 

I       THIS  POSTULATE  IMPLIES  A  CONTRADICTORY  MULTIPLICITY 

OF   FIRST   CAUSES 

This  postulate  of  the  eternal  existence  of  matter  alone  would 
really  be  multiplying  the  number  of  first  causes,  which,  in  the 
final  analysis,  might  be  considered  as  numerous  as  the  number 
of  infinitesimal  particles,  whether  spoken  of  as  atoms,  or  by 
whatever  other  names.     This  would,  of  course,  make  eternal 


6o  Creation  Ex  Nihiio 

all  these  necessarily  mutually  interdependent  particles,  which 
is  contrary  to  what  may  be  regarded  as  almost  a  philosophic 
axiom;  namely,  that  a  conditioned  or  dependent  existence  can- 
not be  self-existent  or  eternal.  Moreover,  to  speak  of  more 
than  one  first  cause,  would  be  absurd,  as  only  one  could  be 
first.  And,  if  there  were  numerous  such  supposed  causes 
eternally  operating  in  the  development  of  the  universal  cosmos, 
their  separate  operations  would  necessarily  have  to  be  a  co- 
operation. Such  co-operation,  or  joint  operation,  of  number- 
less causes  would  surely  be  unspeakably  wonderful,  especially 
when  considered  in  the  light  of  the  marvelous  unity  and  uni- 
formity of  nature  amidst  its  almost  infinite  variety  and  com- 
plexity. For  them  thus  to  work  together  it  would  require 
intelligence  on  the  part  of  every  infinitesimal  cause.  Indeed, 
because  everything  in  nature's  complex  constitution  is  so  re- 
lated to  everything  else  as  to  affect  all  and  be  affected  by  all, 
it  would  require  well  nigh  infinite  intelligence  on  the  part  of 
every  such  supposed  cause.  It  would,  moreover,  require  on 
their  part  also  absolute  unanimity  of  purpose  and  perfect  har- 
mony of  operation  to  produce  such  a  purposeful  and  purposive 
universe.  But,  surely,  not  even  the  wildest  dreamer  or  enthu- 
siastic nature-worshiper  should  ever  ascribe  to  nature's  ultimate 
particles  or  causes  any  such  attributes.  To  account  for  nature 
thus,  would  practically  be  making  divinities  of  every  particle 
of  matter;  and,  therefore  instead  of  eliminating  God  from  the 
universe,  it  would  almost  infinitely  multiply  the  number  of 
gods.  And  yet,  this  is  what  Ernst  Haeckel,  et  al.,  have  prac- 
tically done.  To  the  ether,  or  its  ultimate  particles,  they  thus 
ascribe  consciousness,  will,  etc.,  to  make  their  theories  work- 
able. Thus,  in  an  attempt  to  get  rid  of  the  mystery  of  the  one 
self-existent  absolute  God  as  the  great  First  Cause,  some  men 
have  been  led  into  the  most  palpable  absurdities;  while  the 
mystery  of  cause  and  origin  only  deepens,  and  the  difficulties  of 
their  explanation  rise  in  ever-increasing  greatness,  before  the 
astonished  investigator,  at  every  step. 

It  should,  moreover,  be  said  here  that  such  a  multiplica- 
tion of  supposed  first  causes,  in  necessarily  implying  finiteness 
of  number — as  we  shall  see — would  also  imply  interdepen- 
dence among  them.  And  this  would  contradict  the  idea  of 
first  or  independent  cause  (or  causes),  as  it  would  also  con- 
tradict this  postulate  as  to  the  eternity  of  matter;  for  eternal 


Three  Postulates  6 1 

existence  necessarily  implies  independence.     But  more  of  this 

matter  of  cause  later,  when  we  shall  consider  it  in  all  its 
bearings  on  this  subject.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that,  instead  of 
making  our  problem  easier,  this  postulate  would  make  It  all 
the  more  complex. 

Let  us  further  consider  some  facts  already  partly  developed 
in  stating  the  position  of  materialism,  In  so  far  as  these  di- 
rectly afford  an  additional  cumulative  and  convincing  argument 
against  the  tenableness  of  this  postulate.  They  thus  indirectly 
and  in  anticipation  also  amount  to  a  practical  demonstration 
that  the  first  postulate — that  of  the  eternal  existence  of  spirit 
alone — is  not  only  tenable  but  must  incontrovertibly  be  true, 
and  that,  therefore,  the  universe  is  temporal  and  God-created. 


2      THIS,    POSTULATE    IMPLIES    THE    IMPOSSIBILITY    THAT    ALL 
ENERGY,   LIFE  AND  MIND  HAVE  SPRUNG  FROM  MATTER 

This   postulate    of    the    eternal    existence    of    matter    alone 
would  imply  that  all  those  subtle  forces  and  agencies  of  na- 
ture, or  by  which  nature  may  be  said  to  operate,  are  the  result 
of  development.    And  yet  the  same  reasoning  that  would  make 
matter   eternal   would    also    make   energy    eternal.      On    this 
point  Ernst  Haeckel  is  only  scientifically  consistent  when  he 
makes  the  following  declaration:     "Both  these  great  laws — 
in  physics,  the  fundamental  law  of  the  conservation  of  energy, 
and    in    chemistry,    of    the    conservation    of    matter — may    be 
brought   under   one    philosophical   conception    as    the    law   of 
the  conservation  of  substance;  for,  according  to  our  monistic 
conception,  energy  and  matter  are  inseparable,  being  only  dif- 
ferent inalienable  manifestations  of  one  single  universal  being 
— substance"  {Monism,  pp.  17-18).     And  yet.  In  his  Riddle  of 
the  Universe,  speaking  of  the  cause  or  nature  of  energy  and 
life,  he  inadvertently  makes  them  dependent  upon  matter  or 
material  movements,  as  illustrated  in  the  quotation  given  be- 
low. 

This  postulate  would  mean  even  that  all  life,  including  the 
human  mind  with  Its  subtle  powers  and  attributes,  of  some 
of  which  we  are  only  beginning  to  catch  glimpses,  is  also  a 
generation  from  dead  matter,  by  the  interaction  of  Its  infini- 
tesimal particles,   through   long  cycles  of   evolution.     Among 


62  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

prominent  advocates  of  this  view  may  be  mentioned  such 
well-known  men  of  science  as  Huxley,  Spencer,  Bain,  Mole- 
schott,  Vogt,  Biichner  and  Haeckel. 

It  is,  of  course,  almost  needless  to  say  that,  according  to 
materialistic  monism,  all  energy,  life  and  mind  are  develop- 
ments from,  or  manifestations  of,  matter  as  the  only  reality. 
Haeckel,  the  greatest  authority  on  monism,  expresses  himself 
thus:  "Experience  has  never  yet  discovered  for  us  a  single 
immaterial  substance,  a  single  force  which  is  not  dependent  on 
matter,  or  a  single  form  of  energy  which  is  not  exerted  by 
material  movement,  whether  it  be  of  mass,  or  of  ether,  or  of 
both.  Even  the  most  elaborate  and  most  perfect  forms  of 
energy  that  we  know — the  psychic  life  of  the  higher  animals, 
the  thought  and  reason  of  man — depend  on  material  processes, 
or  changes  in  the  neuroplasm  of  the  ganglionic  cells;  they  are 
inconceivable  apart  from  such  modifications"  (Riddle  of  the 
Universe  J  p.  221 ). 

This  author  thus  reasons  upon  the  supposed  absolute  data  of 
experience,  as  if  human  experience  were  unlimited  in  its  scope 
and  nature.  The  argument  is  therefore  inconclusive.  More- 
over, to  say  definitely,  without  proper  modification,  that  psychic 
life,  thought  and  reason  depend  upon  material  processes,  is 
to  assume  in  a  sentence  that  which  has  puzzled  philosophers 
in  all  ages  as  an  unsolved,  and  indeed  insolvable,  problem. 
That  psychic  life,  thought  and  reason  are  in  some  way  re- 
lated to  or  generally  associated  with  physical  processes  is 
beyond  question;  but  that  relation  need  not  be  one  of  effect 
and  cause  any  more  than  it  is  one  of  cause  and  effect.  Further 
we  need  not  here  answer  this  statement,  except  to  say  that 
it  proves  nothing. 

A     Arguments  For  Eternity    of  Matter  Equally    Valid  For 
Eternity   of  Life  and  Mind 

Not  only  does  the  reasoning  that  would  make  matter  eternal 
also  make  energy  eternal,  but  it  would  also  make  life  and 
the  soul  eternal.  Thus  Soddy  is  as  consistent  on  this  point  as 
is  Haeckel  above,  when  he  says:  '*Deep  down  somewhere  in 
the  processes  of  thought  the  ultimate  test  of  reality  appears 
to  be  the  Law  of  Conservation.  Does  the  soul  exist?  If 
so,  it  must  be  immortal.     Is  matter  real  or  a  mere  impression 


Three  Postulates  63 

of  the  mind?  It  cannot  be  created  or  destroyed,  and  there- 
fore has  an  existence  apart  from  the  mind.  Lastly,  has  energy 
a  specific  existence,  or  is  it  merely  a  convenient  abstraction? 
Energy  is  conceived  like  matter,  and  therefore  obeys  this 
test  of  objective  existence"  {Matter  and  Energy,  p.  41). 

Thus,  it  is  seen  that  the  same  evidence  that  is  appealed  to 
to  prove  matter  to  be  eternal,  might  with  equal  force  also  be 
used  to  prove  energy  and  life  and  mind  to  be  eternal.  And 
yet,  according  to  our  postulate  that  matter  alone  is  eternal — 
to  which  most  of  these  men  subscribe — energy,  life  and  mind 
must  be  a  development  from  matter,  and  hence  of  later  origin 
than  their  material  basis. 

But  that  is  precisely  the  point  at  issue:  whether  matter,  and 
matter  alone,  is  eternal,  and  whether  energy,  life  and  mind 
have  sprung  from  matter.  As  already  intimated,  that  matter 
does  exist,  who  can  with  certainty  deny?  But  that  it  is  the 
sole  original  existence,  or  that  of  which  all  other  existence 
is  but  a  manifestation,  who  can  affirm?  Nay,  rather,  that 
It  does  not  exist  alone  and  is  therefore  not  the  only  existence, 
or  that  which  caused  all  other  supposed  existence  or  of  which 
it  is  only  a  manifestation,  is  a  truth  to  which  every  mani- 
festation of  life  and  mind  bears  witness.  Descartes'  dictum, 
Cogito,  ergo  sum,  expressing  the  consciousness  of  his  separate 
certain  existence  as  a  personality,  regardless  even  of  whether 
matter  exists,  is  true  and  applicable  the  world  over.  Human 
consciousness  everywhere  testifies  that  mind  or  personality  is 
something  different  from  matter.  This  fact  of  human  con- 
sciousness, that  the  perceiving  personality  is  soniething  different 
from  the  materials  perceived,  is  well  expressed  in  the  following 
words  of  Tennyson: 

"The   baby,    new   to   earth    and   sky, 
What  time  his  tender  palm  is  prest 
Against  the  circle  of  the  breast. 
Has  never  thought  that  'This  is  V: 

"But,  as  he  grows,  he  gathers  much, 
And  learns  the  use  of  T  and  'me,' 
And  finds,  'I  am  not  what  I  see. 
And  other   than   the   things   I   touch.' 


64  Creation  Ex  Nihil 0 

"So  rounds  he  to  a  separate  mind 

From  whence  clear  memory  may  begin; 
As,  through  the  frame  that  binds  him  in, 
His  isolation  grows  defined." 

{In  Memoriam,  XLV.) 

B     More  Than  Matter  in  the  Universe 

Every  operation  of  life  or  act  of  mind  in  contravention  of 
laws  governing  material  nature,  is  a  proof  that  here  is  a 
power  not  governed  by  purely  ph^^sical  laws  and  therefore 
a  power  or  essence  not  of  matter.  The  evidence  is  overwhelm- 
ing that  there  is  more  than  matter  in  the  universe.  The  uni- 
verse is  greater,  and  includes  more,  than  matter. 

The  transcendental  nature  of  life,  or  that  it  is  an  entity 
different  from  matter,  should  be  as  evident  to  the  scientific 
investigator  of  the  twentieth  century  as  it  was  to  the  philo- 
sophic speculator  before  the  birth  of  modern  science.  All  the 
discoveries  of  modern  science  have  not  brought  us  any  nearer 
the  solution  of  the  mystery  of  life  than  were  our  earlier  gen- 
erations of  thinkers. 

The  mind  or  the  soul  is  as  much  a  reality  as  is  matter. 
We  cannot  explain  matter  any  more  than  we  can  explain  the 
soul.  Many  scientists  have  fully  realized  this.  Thus,  Ernst 
Mach  speaks  as  follows:  "To  us  investigators,  the  concept 
'soul'  is  irrelevant  and  a  matter  for  laughter.  But  matter  is 
an  abstraction  of  exactly  the  same  kind,  just  as  good  and  just 
as  bad  as  it  is.  We  know  as  much  about  the  soul  as  we  do 
of  matter"  {History  and  Root  of  the  Principle  of  the  Con- 
servation of  Energy,  Translated  by  Jourdain,  191 1,  p.  48). 
In  line  with  this  statement  of  Mach  are  the  following  words, 
which  are  a  slight  modification  of  a  toast  reported  to  have 
been  given  by  a  man  of  science: 

What  is  mind?     No  matter. 

What  is  matter?     Never  mind. 

What  is  the  difference  between  mind   and  matter? 

It  is  immaterial. 

The  eminent  geologist  Joseph  LeConte,  in  his  lecture  on 
Man:  His  Place  in  Nature j  with  equal  frankness  expressed 


Three  Postulates  65 

his  conviction  that  there  is  more  in  nature  than  matter  or 
mere  stuff,  as  follows:  "As  I  have  already  stated,  there  are 
two  poles  of  existence,  without  the  recognition  of  which,  philos- 
ophy is  impossible;  they  may  be  variously  represented  as  mat- 
ter and  force,  or  matter  and  spirit,  or  Nature  and  God.  Mat- 
ter is  essential  inertness,  spirit  is  essential  activity.  The  very 
origin  of  our  notion  of  force  is,  I  believe,  the  consciousness 
of  our  own  mental  energy.  Matter  reveals  itself  to  our 
senses,  but  energy,  or  force,  only  to  our  consciousness.  We 
then  extend  it  to  external  Nature"  {Religion  and  Science,  pp. 

^77-8)-  ,       ,_  .     .         .      . 

Other  scientists  were  driven  by  their  investigations  to  the 

same  or  similar  conclusions,  among  them  Du  Bois-Reymond, 
Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  Balfour  Stewart,  Alfred  Russel  Wallace, 
Cesare  Lombroso  and  Peter  Guthrie  Tait,  some  of  whom 
were  led  to  even  unwarranted  conclusions  in  their  specula- 
tions. But,  even  though  several  of  these  men  were  led  into 
error  on  the  opposite  extreme,  their  testimony  against  the  ex- 
istence of  matter  alone  is  none  the  less  valuable  in  our  discus- 
sion. 

C     Matter  An  Inadequate  Cause  to  Produce  Life  and  Mind 

The  evidence  is  thus  overwhelming  that  there  is  more  than 
matter  in  the  universe.  But,  as  already  seen,  dead  matter 
cannot  bring  forth  life  without  being  itself  impregnated  with 
life.  Harvey  well  said,  Omne  vivum  e  vivo.  The  stream 
cannot  rise  above  its  source;  the  effect  cannot  contain  any- 
thing that  was  not  potentially  first  in  the  cause.  We  are, 
of  course,  speaking  of  pure  cause,  unmixed  with  other,  sec- 
ondary causes — a  cause,  moreover,  that  is  not  itself  an  ef- 
fect. Thus,  also,  if  matter  in  the  aggregate  is  not  a  pure 
cause,  it  must  itself  have  to  be  an  effect;  and  hence  it  must 
have  been  brought  about  by  an  antecedent  cause,  a  cause  that 
is  therefore  not  matter.  That  is,  as  there  would  have  been 
an  antecedent  cause  for  it,  matter  would  necessarily  have  had 
its  origin  later  than  its  immaterial  cause,  and  therefore  in 
time  as  reckoned  from  the  supposed  time,  or  rather  eternity, 
of  its  cause — which  is  contrary  to  this  postulate,  that  matter 
is  eternal  and  that  it  is  the  only  eternal  existence.  This  reason- 
ing could  therefore  not  be  applied  to  a  First  Cause,  or  an  un- 


66  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

caused  or  absolute  cause.    The  full  force  of  this  will  presently 
appear. 

Some  of  the  most  eminent  scientists,  convinced  that  con- 
sciousness and  mind  cannot  be  accounted  for  or  explained  by 
physical  laws,  have  borne  witness  to  their  convictions.  They 
have  come  to  regard  the  step  from  energy  to  life,  from  matter 
to  consciousness,  an  impossible  one.  All  must  acknowledge 
the  impossibility  of  passing,  by  natural  explanation  or  natural 
law,  from  an  object  of  consciousness  to  the  consciousness  of  an 
object.  Thus,  the  great  physicist  John  Tyndall  w^as  very 
pronounced  in  his  conviction  that  "the  passage  from  the 
physics  of  the  brain  to  the  corresponding  facts  of  conscious- 
ness is  inconceivable  as  a  result  of  Mechanics"  (Fragments  of 
Science,  Published  by  Appleton,  1915,  Vol.  II.,  p.  87).  And, 
he  further  said,  "I  do  not  think  he  [the  materialist]  is  en- 
titled to  say  that  his  molecular  groupings,  and  motions,  ex- 
plain everything.  In  reality  they  explain  nothing.  The  ut- 
most he  can  affirm  is  the  association  of  two  classes  of  phe- 
nomena, of  whose  real  bond  of  union  he  is  in  absolute  igno- 
rance" (Ibid.,  p.  88). 

The  evolutionist  John  Fiske  also  fully  recognized  the  ina- 
bility of  accounting  for  consciousness  and  the  soul  of  man 
by  material  or  physical  forces.  On  this  point  he  expressed 
himself  as  follows:  "Whence  came  the  soul  we  no  more  know 
than  we  know  whence  came  the  universe.  The  primal  origin  of 
consciousness  is  hidden  in  the  depths  of  the  bygone  eternity. 
That  it  cannot  possibly  be  the  product  of  any  cunning  ar- 
rangement of  material  particles  is  demonstrated  beyond  per- 
adventure  by  what  we  now  know  of  the  correlation  of  physical 
forces.  The  Platonic  view  of  the  soul,  as  a  spiritual  sub- 
stance, an  effluence  from  Godhood,  ...  is  doubtless  the  view 
most  consonant  with  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge"  ( The 
Destiny  of  Man,  p.  42). 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  above  is  a  close  approach,  on 
the  part  of  mere  science  or  philosophy,  to  the  Scriptural  view. 
So  convinced  was  this  great  thinker  that  mind  is  not  the  re- 
sult or  effect  of  molecular  interaction  or  of  any  other  physical 
cause  whatsoever,  that  in  his  various  works  he  repeatedly  gives 
emphatic  expression  to  this  conviction.  The  physiologist  John 
G.  McKendrick  in  his  great  work,  A   Text  Book  on  Physi- 


Three  Postulates  67 

ology,  apparently  also  recognizes  the  soul  and  consciousness  as 
being  altogether  different  from  matter  and  energy,  and  not 
caused  by  or  dependent  upon  them. 

Upon  the  subject  of  the  origin  of  thought,  a  noted  lecturer 
and  writer  on  chemistry  expresses  himself  in  the  following 
unambiguous  words:  "How  can  any  rolling  concourse  of 
atoms  thrill  thought  and  consciousness  into  matter?  It 
avails  not  how  complex  a  sj^stem  we  conceive  of  flashing  atoms 
and  sub-atoms,  for  our  chemistry  cannot  explain  how  thought 
arises  from  their  motions  and  arrangements.  ...  A  man  is 
but  an  aggregate  of  material  atoms — whirling,  wheeling,  col- 
liding— in  ceaseless  change.  And  Science,  before  she  can  pre- 
tend to  have  solved  the  problem  of  life,  must  explain  how 
such  a  mere  aggregate  of  so  many  pounds'  weight  of  carbon, 
nitrogen,  phosphorus,  oxygen  and  hydrogen  atoms  can  evolve 
thought  and  consciousness  by  the  mere  relative  movement  of 
these  atoms"  {Modem  Chemistry  and  Its  Wonders,  I9I5> 
p.  22-23).  Even  Herbert  Spencer,  the  great  apostle  of 
agnosticism,  could  not  help  but  acknowledge  that  the  conscious 
soul  cannot  be  the  fleeting  collocation  of  material  particles. 
Indeed,  everywhere,  especially  in  his  Principles  of  Biology, 
he  acknowledges  that  the  manifestations  of  all  life  are  un- 
known and  unknowable,  and  cannot  be  explained  by  mere 
physical  laws. 

D     Life  and  Mind  Necessarily  From  An  Immaterial  Super- 
natural, or  Spiritual,  Source 

As  above  shown,  life  is  totally  different  from  matter,  and 
the  mind  or  soul  of  man  is  a  transcendental  entity  not  sprung 
from  matter.  But,  as  these  have  not  originated  from  matter, 
they  must  come  from  a  source  other  than  matter.  Hence,  even 
granted  for  the  moment  that  matter  is  eternal,  it  is  evident 
that  this  immaterial  ultimate  source  of  life  and  mind  or 
soul — as  it  also  did  not  come  from  matter — must  also  be 
eternal;  and  this  is  contrary  to  our  postulate,  that  matter  alone 
is  eternal.  But  we  are,  of  course,  far  from  conceding  that 
matter  is  eternal,  as  all  our  argument  is  against  its  eternity. 

Nor  is  this  immaterial  source  or  cause  of  the  origin  of  life 
and  mind  in  conflict  with  really  established  science.  Nay, 
]^atlier,  it  is  the  only  possible  explanation  to  make  them  in.- 


68  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

telligible.  And,  without  the  postulatfon  of  some  spiritual 
Cause  of  life  and  mind  or  soul,  even  science  would  be  found 
Internally  Irreconcilable.  This  has  also  been  acknowledged 
by  some  eminent  scientists.  Thus,  Lord  Kelvin,  before  the 
British  Association,  definitely  declared  that,  Instead  of  neither 
affirming  nor  denying  creative  power,  as  is  often  asserted,  sci- 
ence positively  affirms  creative  power,  a  fact  which  science 
compels  as  an  article  of  belief. 

The    sam.e    is    in    substance    openly    acknovv^ledged    by    the 
chemist   Robert   Kennedy   Duncan,    as   witness   the   following 
words:      "The   supposition   that   there  was    a   guiding   Intel- 
ligence working  the  synthesis  of  living  matter  without  interfer- 
ing either  with  Its  chemistry  or  its  energetics  does  not  seem 
to   be    out   of   consonance   with   contemporary   knowledge;    it 
seems.   Indeed,   to  be  the  one  reasonable,   believable,   and  up- 
lifting theory  of  the  origin  of  life"   {Some  Chemical  Problems 
of  To-Day  J  p.  104).    And  St.  George  Mivart  also  recognized 
this  need  of  a  spiritual  origin  of  the  soul  of  man,  and,  from 
the  evolutionist's  standpoint,  made  a  somewhat  plausible  sug- 
gestion  as   to   a   possible   reconciliation   between    Genesis   and 
science,  in  the  following  words:     "Scripture  seems  plainly  to 
indicate  this  [difference  of  sources  of  body  and  spiritual  soul] 
when  it  says  that  'God  made  man  from  the  dust  of  the  earth, 
and  breathed  Into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life.'     This  is  a 
plain  and  direct  statement  that  man's  body  was  not  created 
in  the  primary  and  absolute  sense  of  the  word,  but  was  evolved 
from  pre-existing  material    (symbolized  by  the  term  'dust  of 
the  earth'),  and  was  therefore  pnly  derivatively  createdj  i.  e., 
by  the  operation  of  secondary  laws.     His  soul,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  created  In  quite  a  different  way,  not  by  any  pre- 
existing means,  external  to  God  Himself,   but  by  the  direct 
action  of  the  Almighty,  symbolized  by  the  term  'breathing'  " 
{Genesis   of  Species,   p.    300).     A   man   need   not   go   to   the 
length  of  accepting  Mlvart's  theory  In  full,  especially  as  to  the 
development  of  man's  body,  but  that  does  not  invalidate  his 
testimony  as  to  the  origin  of  man's  soul.     Nay,   rather,   this 
testimony  should  have  all  the  greater  weight  as  it  comes  from 
one  of  the  greatest  of  the  advocates  of  the  material  evolution 
of   man's   body. 

Even  Charles  Darwin  himself  had  to  acknowledge  the  need 
of  some  creative  Divinity  back  of  the  supposed  first  germs  of 


Three  Postulates  69 

life  to  make  his  theory  of  organic  evolution  workable.  And 
to  him  a  creation  of  life  seemed  all  the  more  wonderful  as 
he  viewed  it  as  having  come  from  a  few  directly  created 
primordial  germs,  endowed  with  the  necessary  potentialities 
for  the  evolving,  by  secondary  agencies,  into  a  world  of  de- 
veloped beautiful  flora  and  fauna.  He  strikingly  expressed 
this  in  the  closing  paragraph  of  the  second  volume  of  his  work, 
The  Origin  of  Species,  as  follows:  "There  is  grandeur  in  this 
view  of  life,  with  its  several  powers,  having  been  originally 
breathed  by  the  Creator  into  a  few  forms  or  into  one;  and 
that,  whilst  this  planet  has  gone  cycling  on  according  to  the 
fixed  law  of  gravity,  from  so  simple  a  beginning  endless  forms 
most  beautiful  and  most  wonderful  have  been  and  are  being 
evolved"    (Sixth    Edition). 

Thus  even  the  most  ardent  advocates  of  the  inflexibility 
of  nature's  laws  and  of  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution  are 
compelled  to  acknowledge  that  life  and  mind  or  soul  are 
totally  different  from  matter,  and  that  they  must  therefore 
somehow  and  at  some  time  have  been  created  by  a  Divinity. 
And  this  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  necessary  implication  of 
this  postulate  of  the  eternal  existence  of  matter  alone — that 
energy,  life  and  mind  or  soul  have  sprung  from  matter. 

3      THIS    POSTULATE   IMPLIES   THAT   THE    PHYSICAL    UNIVERSE 
IS    INFINITE^    WHICH    IS    CONTRARY    TO    FACT 

To  assume  that  matter  alone  is  eternal  is  necessarily  to 
assume  it  also  to  be  infinite,  or  else  we  should  be  assuming 
the  impossible,  as  already  stated;  namely,  that  a  finite  could 
be  eternal  and  absolute.  A  finite  is  necessarily  a  caused  ex- 
istence and  must  therefore  have  had  a  beginning.  And,  of 
course,  if  matter  is  finite  it  cannot  be  eternal  and  absolute. 
The  very  idea  of  finiteness  or  finitude  implies  infiniteness  or 
infinitude;  limitation  or  a  hmit  implies  a  something  limiting; 
dependence  implies  an  independent  and  absolute.  Thus,  the 
very  finiteness  of  matter,  or  of  the  universe,  points  to  an 
infinity,  within  which,  or  by  which,  that  finite  physical  uni- 
verse has  its  being,  and  therefore  to  another  eternal  exist- 
ence. This  would  be  contrary  to  this  postulate,  that  matter 
alone  is  eternal. 

But,   in  order  to  overcome  this  difficulty,  many  men  have 


70  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

therefore  contended  that  the  physical  universe  is  infinite  in 
extent,  and  that  it  is  therefore  properly  absolute  and  eternal. 
As  it  would,  however,  be  impossible  to  do  justice  to  this  con- 
tention, without  entering  upon  a  somewhat  lengthy  discus- 
sion, especially  also  as  to  the  nature  of  cause,  we  shall  con- 
sider this  phase  of  the  subject  separately. 

We  have  thus  seen  that  this  postulate  of  the  eternal  exist- 
ence of  matter  alone  also  necessarily  implies  that  life  and  mind 
or  soul  would  have  sprung  from  matter.  But  we  have  found, 
on  the  contrary,  that  life,  mind  or  soul  could  not  have  sprung 
from  matter,  and  that  they  must  therefore  have  come  from 
a  source  that  is  not  material — or  that  they  must  have  been 
created  by  a  supreme  Will.  We  have  found,  moreover,  that 
such  an  origin  is  not  inconsistent  with  truly  scientific  prin- 
ciples, but  that  it  is  rather  in  necessary  accord  with  them. 
And,  as  this  immaterial  source  of  life  and  mind  or  soul  can- 
not, therefore,  have  been  dependent  upon,  or  originated  from, 
matter,  nor  from  itself,  it  must  necessarily  be  an  eternal 
entity,  which  is  contrary  to  this  postulate,  that  matter  alone 
Is  eternal.  We  have  also  seen  that  this  postulate  necessarily 
Implies  that  the  universe  must  be  infinite,  which,  as  we  shall 
show  in  our  next  two  chapters,  is  not  the  case,  and  is  even  a 
physical  impossibility.  Therefore  this  postulate,  that  matter 
alone  is  eternal,  must  fall.  And  the  necessary  conclusion  has 
become  apparent;  namely,  that  matter  is  not  only  not  the 
only  eternal  existence,  but  that  it  Is  no  eternal  existence. 

Ill     POSTULATE   OF   ETERNAL   EXISTENCE   OF 
SPIRIT  ALONE  TENABLE  AND   TRUE 

We  have  now  shown  that  the  postulate  of  the  eternal  ex- 
istence of  both  matter  and  spirit  and  that  of  the  eternal  exist- 
ence of  matter  alone  are  both  untenable.  Of  the  three  pos- 
sible postulates  as  to  a  first  and  necessarily  eternal  existence, 
there  is  therefore  only  one  left;  namely,  that  of  the  eternal 
existence  of  spirit  alone.  And  we  might  in  anticipation  say 
that  this  is,  of  course,  practically  Identical  with  the  Christian 
conception  of  the  eternal  existence  of  God  alone.  From  the 
foregoing  arguments  it  may,  however,  be  said  that  this  re- 
maining postulate  no  longer  remains  a  mere  postulatlon.     It. 


Three  Postulates  71 

now  stands  out  as  almost  a  demonstrated  fact,  even  without 
further  proof. 

But  there  is  not  only  this  negative  proof  for  the  eternal 
existence  of  spirit  alone.  This  can  also  practically  be  demon- 
strated by  positive  ontological  and  mathematico-physical  argu- 
ments, as  the  following  chapters  will  show.  Indeed,  the  whole 
combined  and  cumulative  evidence  from  universal  nature  con- 
stitutes a  sublime  positive  proof.  And,  though  apostate  man 
should  deny  this  one  great  fact,  in  persisting  to  be  an  orphan  in 
the  universe,  and  though  he  should  be  silent  in  his  praises  to 
the  only  eternal  Being,  it  would  ever  remain  true  that  all 
nature  with  her  myriad  voices  would  continue  eloquent  in 
praise  to  the  great  Creator,  God. 

It  might  almost  seem  superfluous,  therefore,  to  attempt  to 
add  anything  on  this  only  remaining  postulate,  or  well-nigh 
demonstrated  fact — that  of  the  eternal  existence  of  spirit 
alone.  Only  a  few  additional  words  will  therefore  be  said 
in  this  connection.  The  following  chapters  may,  however, 
be  regarded  as  a  development  of  the  idea  bodied  forth  in  this 
postulate. 

This  postulate  alone  accords  with  man's  own  mysterious 
being.  The  aspirations  and  yearnings  of  the  human  heart 
would,  without  it,  forever  have  to  remain  unfilled  and  un- 
satisfied. Man's  longing  for  life  can  have  no  other  meaning 
than  as  an  index-finger  pointing  to  his  origin  and  source,  the 
truly  living  One.  Design  and  purpose  in  man,  of  which 
he  finds  the  correlation  everywhere  in  nature,  would  be  an 
anomaly,  if  it  did  not  imply  and  plainly  point  to  a  Designer 
from  Whom  all  design,  both  in  man  and  in  nature,  has  its 
being.  Then,  too,  the  very  God-instinct,  or  what  may  be 
called  the  spontaneous  God-consciousness,  is  only  the  created 
impress  of  this  great  fact  upon  his  very  nature.  And,  to  the 
unbiased  mind,  the  idea  of  a  temporal  universe,  brought  into 
being  by  an  eternal  Creator,  is  well-nigh  intuitive,  like  the 
ideas  of  time,  space  and  causation.  And,  together  with  his 
God-instinct,  this  may  be  regarded  as  a  vestige  of  his  crea- 
tion, left  upon  him  by  his  God — a  trailing  cloud  of  glory  in 
his  origin. 

The  belief  in  some  supreme  Being  as  the  cause  or  author  of 
all  things  is  a  universal  one.  At  various  times,  when  new 
savage  tribes  of  man  were  discovered,  this  universality  of  be- 
lief in  some  Divinity  was  denied,  because  there  was  no  such 


72  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

belief  at  first  apparent  among  them.  But,  upon  more  thorough- 
going investigation,  such  belief,  however  crude,  has  always 
been  found.  To  quote  an  acknowledged  authority  on  this 
point,  C.  P.  Tiele  of  the  University  of  Leiden  made  the 
following  veiy  emphatic  declaration:  "The  statement  that 
there  are  nations  or  tribes  which  possess  no  religion,  rests  either 
on  inaccurate  observation,  or  on  a  confusion  of  ideas.  No 
tribe  or  nation  has  yet  been  met  with  destitute  of  belief  in 
any  higher  beings;  and  travellers  who  asserted  their  exist- 
ence have  been  afterwards  refuted  by  the  facts.  It  is  legiti- 
mate, therefore,  to  call  religion  in  its  most  general  sense  a 
universal  phenomenon  of  humanity"  {Outlines  of  the  His- 
tory of  Religion,  Tr.  Carpenter,  Second  Edition,  p.  6).  So, 
also,  David  Livingstone  and  other  explorers  have  testified  to 
the  universality  of  belief  in  a  god  or  some  higher  being  or 
beings,  as  a  fact  that  cannot  be  denied  in  the  face  of  the  evi- 
dence. 

This  universal  belief  in  a  supreme  spiritual  Being  has  surely 
not  come  by  accident  or  development,  but  by  man's  created 
nature.  Like  the  created  instinct  for  food  and  other  neces- 
sities, this  God-instinct  is  a  natural  and  necessary  one  to  lead 
man  to  seek  his  Creator.  Indeed,  in  addition  to  an  inborn 
instinct,  telling  him — in  language  often  very  unintelligible  be- 
cause of  his  fallen  nature — of  the  one  supreme  and  only 
eternal  Entity,  all  nature  with  overwhelming  evidence  silently 
testifies  to  every  man  that  the  emotions  of  his  heart  are  con- 
firmed by  the  manifestations  of  a  creative  mind  in  every  part 
of  the  environing  universe.  Thus,  the  evidence  within  is 
matched  by  the  evidence  without.  The  human  soul  and  the 
material  universe,  perceiver  and  perceived,  are  spiritual  and 
material  complements.  And  they  both  bear  witness  in  this 
manifest  designed  relationship,  as  well  as  in  their  intrinsic 
natures,  that  they  are  creatures  of  a  higher  Being.  And  that 
Being,  by  His  very  nature,  must  be  an  independent  or  abso- 
lute and  eternal  spiritual  entity.  In  line  with  this  are  the 
following  words  by  Oscar  Kuhns,  which,  although  we  need 
not  endorse  the  author's  full  application  elsewhere,  are  surely 
more  than  mere  poetry:  "Every  being  is  an  epitome  of  all  the 
rest,  and  in  the  understanding  of  the  meanest  flower  that 
grows,  lies  the  whole  mystery  of  God  and  the  universe.  Man 
especially  is  a  microcosm;  he  is  placed  in  the  middle  of  the 


Three  Postulates  73 

universe;  in  his  body  related  to  animals  and  plants;  in  his 
mind  related  to  the  celestial  planets;  and  in  his  soul  at  one 
with  the  angels,  and  capable  of  union  with  God.  He  is 
touched  with  the  infinite  streams  of  influence  that  flow  into 
his  soul  from  all  sides;  no  part  of  the  universe  can  be  touched 
without  the  strings  of  his  heart  vibrating  in  unison.  And 
above  and  about  and  mingling  with  all  this  seething  mass  of 
activities  is  God,  who  manifests  himself  in  all  things,  from 
the  smallest  flower  to  man, — ^who  is  the  crown  of  creation" 
{The  Sense  of  the  Infinite ^  1908,  p.  190). 

It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  many  eminent  men  of  science 
who,  in  the  less  mature  periods  of  their  lives  denied  the 
existence  of  God  and  the  soul,  in  their  maturer  periods  came 
back  to  acknowledge  the  existence  of  both.  In  early  life 
they  were  apparently  led  by  the  sage  declarations  of  leaders 
who  denied  the  need  of  either  existence  to  explain  nature,  and 
perhaps  also  by  a  half-conviction  that  such  an  attitude  might 
border  on  the  heroic.  But  maturer  considerations  and  deeper 
investigations  into  the  wonders  of  nature  compelled  them  to 
acknowledge  the  manifest  absurdity  of  such  a  position.  Thus, 
Du  Bois-Reymond,  Wilhelm  Max  Wundt,  Karl  Ernst  von 
Baer  and  Rudolf  Virchow  during  the  earlier  periods  of  their 
lives  were  pronounced  materialists;  but  they  gradually  rose 
to  regard  the  soul  as  a  supernatural  entity,  and  a  supreme 
Deity  back  of  nature  as  absolutely  necessary  to  make  it  in- 
telligible. 

Wundt's  change  of  view  was  especially  a  radical  one.  He 
not  only  publicly  renounced  his  former  position,  but  he  even 
condemned  it  as  the  sin  of  his  youth.  So  also  Du  Bois-Reymond 
in  later  and  maturer  life  came  to  renounce  his  atheistic  con- 
ception of  the  universe  and  to  accept  a  theistic  view  of  crea- 
tion. Thus,  in  an  address  on  Neovitalism,  in  1894,  he  ex- 
pressed himself  as  of  the  conviction  that  all  matter  was  created 
ages  ago  by  one  creative  act  of  Deity  and  then  endowed  with 
all  the  potentialities  necessary  for  its  full  evolution,  crowned 
in  the  being  of  man.  It  might  also  be  said  that  even  Im- 
manuel  Kant  largely  modified  his  prejudiced  views  of  earlier 
life.  Even  the  great  botanist  Reinke  not  only  rejected  the 
physical  origin  of  species,  but  he  even  came  to  accept  the  ac- 
count of  creation  in  Genesis  I.  in  all  its  wonderful  con- 
sistency and  simplicity.     Thus  in  these,   as  well  as  in  many 


74  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

other  men,  is  beautifully  illustrated  the  dictum  of  Francis 
Bacon,  "A  little  philosophy  inclineth  man's  mind  to  atheism, 
but  depth  in  philosophy  bringeth  men's  minds  about  to  re- 
ligion"   {Essays:   Of  Atheism). 

This  postulate  of  the  eternal  existence  of  spirit  alone  is 
thus  not  only  shown  to  be  altogether  tenable,  but,  in  con- 
nection with  the  only  other  two — but  untenable — postulates, 
it  remains  as  a  practically  demonstrated  fact.  In  the  remain- 
ing chapters  this  will,  however,  become  very  much  more  ap- 
parent; namely,  that  the  only  eternal  entity  must  be  a  spiritual 
being — the  God  of  the  Scriptures — and  that  the  universe  was 
by  Him  called  into  being  ex  nihilo  in  time  or  at  time's  begin- 
ning. We  shall,  therefore,  close  this  chapter  and  proceed  to 
our  next  chapter,  in  which  we  shall  show  that  the  universe 
is  by  nature  a  finite,  and,  therefore,  a  dependent  or  non- 
absolute  and  created  existence. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  PHYSICAL  UNIVERSE  FINITE  AND  TEM- 
PORAL AND  THEREFORE  A  CREATURE- 
EVIDENCE  FROM  DEPENDENCE 

At  the  close  of  our  discussion  of  the  postulate  of  the 
eternal  existence  of  matter  alone — in  the  preceding  chapter — 
we  stated  that  many  men  contend  that  the  physical  universe 
is  infinite  in  extent,  and  therefore  necessarily  eternal  and  abso- 
lute. This  is  a  necessary  assumption  in  the  interests  of  their 
contention,  that  the  universe  is  uncreated  and  eternal,  in  order 
to  escape  the  dilemma  of  contending  for  an  impossibility; 
namely,  that  a  finite  can  be  eternal  and  absolute.  They  would 
thus  also  account  for  a  supposedly  endless  series  of  successive 
evolutions  and  devolutions,  alternating  like  mighty  pulse- 
beats,  from  nebula2  to  star-systems  and  back  to  nebulae  again, 
and  so  on  without  end.  Thus  they  suppose  the  possibility 
also  of  numberless  planetary  systems  in  eternal  cycles.  These, 
in  their  turns,  and  partly  simultaneously,  would  supposedly  be- 
come theatres  of  life,  transmitted  both  successively  and  simul- 
taneously  from   system   to   system    forever. 

Thus  Ernst  Haeckel  holds  that  the  ether  is  boundless  and 
immeasurable,  and  in  eternal  motion,  causing  all  phenomena. 
He  embodies  his  theory  of  an  infinite  and  eternal  universe  in 
his  striking  "cosmological  theorems,"  as  follows:  "(i)  The 
universe,  or  the  cosmos,  is  eternal,  infinite,  and  illimitable.  (2) 
Its  substance,  with  its  two  attributes  (matter  and  energy), 
fills  infinite  space,  and  is  in  eternal  motion.  (3)  This  mo- 
tion runs  on  through  infinite  time  as  an  unbroken  development, 
with  a  periodic  change  from  life  to  death,  from  evolution  to 
devolution.  (4)  The  innumerable  bodies  which  are  scat- 
tered about  the  space-filling  ether  all  obey  the  same  law  of 
substance';  while  the  rotating  masses  slowly  move  towards 
their  destruction  and  dissolution  in  one  part  of  space  others  are 

75 


76  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

springing  into  new  life  and  development  in  other  quarters  of 
the  universe,"  etc.  {The  Riddle  of  the  Universe,  p.  13).  In 
another  statement,  with  equal  definiteness  he  makes  energy 
eternal:  "The  sum-total  of  force  or  energy  in  the  universe 
remains  constant,  no  matter  what  changes  take  place^  around 
us;  it  is  eternal  and  infinite,  like  the  matter  on  which  it  is 
inseparably  dependent"   (Ibid.,  p.  231). 

Of  similar  import  are  the  following  words  by  Orlando  J. 
Smith,  who  holds  that  all  things,  even  including  the  human 
soul,  are  without  beginning  and  without  end:  "i.  The  Uni- 
verse has  in  space  no  boundary;  in  time  no  beginning  and  no 
end.  2.  There  is  no  creation  and  no  annihilation — the  es- 
sential properties  of  all  things  being  uncreatable  and  inde- 
structible. Birth  and  death,  growth  and  decay,  are  transforma- 
tions"  {Eternalism,  1902,  p.  28). 

The  belief  that  the  physical  universe  is  infinite  led  Friedrich 
Carl  Biichner  also  to  the  natural  conclusion  that  it  must  be 
eternal  and  uncreated,  as  he  thus  expressed  it:  ''The  Uni- 
verse of  matter  with  its  properties,  conditions,  or  movements, 
which  we  name  forces,  must  have  existed  from  and  will  exist 
to  all  eternity,  or — in  other  words — the  Universe  cannot  have 
been  created."  And  other  men,  from  the  same  or  similar 
premises,  have  come  to  the  same  conclusion;  namely,  that  the 
physical  universe  must  be  eternal  and  uncaused. 

Similar  statements  might  be  quoted  from  the^  writings  of 
other  men  of  science ;  but,  as  others  are  found  in  this  work 
in  connection  with  our  discussion  of  special  points,  we  shall 
not  further  multiply  citations  here.  Enough  have,  however, 
been  given  to  show  the  importance  of  the  theory  of  an  infinite 
universe  for  the  related  theory  of  its  eternal  duration  and 
self -existence. 

So  necessary  is  the  idea  of  an  infinite  universe  to  make  the 
theory  of  its  eternal  duration  workable,  that  the  advocates  of 
eternalism  have  to  assume  its  infinity  as  a  necessary  postulate 
of  reason.  This  necessity  is  openly  acknowledged  by  Svante 
Arrhenius  in  the  following  words:  "If  the  world  were  limited, 
as  people  used  to  fancy — that  is  to  say,  if  the  stars  were 
crowded  together  in  a  huge  heap,  and  only  infinite,  empty  space 
outside  of  this  heap,  the  dust  particles  ejected  from  the  suns 
during  the  past  ages  by  the  action  of  the  radiating  pressure 
would  have  been  lost  in  infinite  space,  just  as  we  imagined  that 


Evidence  from  Dependence  77 

the  radiated  energy  of  the  sun  was  lost.  If  that  were  so,  the 
development  of  the  universe  would  long  since  have  come  to  an 
end,  to  an  annihilation  of  all  matter  and  of  all  energy" 
{Worlds  in  the  Making j  p.  209). 

This,  therefore,  is  precisely  the  difficulty  that  these  men 
have  to  overcome;  namely,  that  the  universe  is  finite.  And, 
even  if  it  were  infinite,  would  that  necessarily  be  a  proof  of 
their  theories — which  are  only  theories — built  upon  very  in- 
significant data?  Surely  it  is  a  wild  stretch  of  the  imagina- 
tion, from  such  insufficient  evidence  as  is  available  from  this 
insignificant  corner  of  the  universe  to  determine  how  the  im- 
measurably vast  universe  came  to  be  and  what  will  be  its 
ultimate  destiny.  But  to  assume  that  the  universe  is  infinite 
is  to  do  so  in  the  face  of  incontrovertible  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  as  we  shall  now  proceed  to  show  and,  as  we  hope, 
practically  to  demonstrate  in  this  and  the  following  chapter. 
Here  we  shall  consider  dependence  as  an  evidence  that  the  uni- 
verse is  finite.  And  in  our  next  chapter  we  shall  consider  the 
evidence  for  its  finiteness  from  the  universe  as  a  cosmic 
whole. 

What  evidence,  then,  does  nature  furnish  that  it  is  de- 
pendent and  finite?  There  are  limitations  on  every  side. 
There  is  dependence  everywhere.  This  limitation  or  inter- 
dependence may  be  considered  as  consisting  of  two  kinds; 
namely,  simultaneous  or  synchronous,  and  successive  or  chrono- 
logical. And,  while  there  is  a  sense  in  which  both  may  be 
considered  as  causal,  it  is  the  latter  that  would  more  commonly 
be  recognized  as  such. 

I  EVIDENCE  FROM  APPARENTLY  SIMULTANE- 
OUS OR  SYNCHRONOUS  DEPENDENCE, 
PROVING  AN  INDEPENDENT  AND  ABSO- 
LUTE   UPHOLDER 

All  things  within  the  physical  universe  are  mutually  so  in- 
terrelated that  they  are  necessarily  dependent  upon  one  an- 
other. And  this  is  so  true  that  it  may  truthfully  ^  be  said 
that  not  only  the  moving  of  a  world,  but  even  the  lifting  of 
a  pebble,  must,  by  the  all-pervading  law  of  gravitation,  neces- 
sarily affect,  however  infinitesimally,  the  whole  material  uni- 
verse.    That  surely  shows  interdependence.     Thus,   each  af- 


78  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

fects  all  and  all  affect  each.  And,  for  the  universe  to  be 
infinite,  there  would  have  to  be  an  absoluteness  and  inde- 
pendence somewhere,  either  locally  or  in  the  universal  ag- 
gregate. 

In  illustration  of  this  truth  and  fact,  as  a  proof  of  the 
finiteness  of  nature,  we  shall  make  use  of  what  w^e  may  call 
an  indefinite  series  of  dependences.  Upon  what  is  your  chair 
dependent  for  support?  Upon  the  floor.  Upon  what  is  the 
floor  dependent?  Upon  the  building.  Upon  what  is  the 
building  dependent?  Upon  the  earth.  Upon  what  is  the  earth 
dependent?  Upon  the  sun.  Upon  what  is  the  sun  dependent? 
Some  one  might  answer.  Upon  some  other  sun  or  star,  or 
perhaps  rather  upon  the  centre  of  gravity  of  a  group  of  stellar 
bodies.  Upon  what  then  is  that  supposed  body,  or  group  of 
bodies,  dependent?  Perhaps  upon  some  other  group  or  groups, 
or  upon  their  common  centre  of  gravity,  as  some  one  might 
suggest. 

I       NO   SERIES   OF   SUPPORTS   AND   DEPENDENCES   INFINITE 

The  above  series  of  questions  and  answers  might  be  con- 
tinued indefinitely.  For,  however  great  the  number  in  this 
series  of  supports  might  be  supposed  to  be,  we  should  still  have 
the  ever-recurring  question,  "And  upon  what  does  that  last 
support  depend  for  its  support?"  As  every  chain  of  indi- 
vidual links  must  necessarily  be  finite  and  must  hang  from 
some  support  not  itself,  or  beyond  it,  so  must  this  chain  of 
supposed  supports  be  finite  and  hang  from,  or  depend  upon, 
some  ulterior  independent  support.  And,  as  the  universe 
is  composed  of  an  indefinite  number  of  finites  or  dependents, 
whatever  they  be,  so  in  the  universal  aggregate  must  it  re- 
main finite  and  dependent  or  conditioned;  for  no  number  of 
conditioned  and  finite  things  can  constitute  an  infinite  and 
unconditioned.  Thus  nature's  finite  series  of  mutually  inter- 
dependent supports  incontrovertibly  proves  it  to  be  a  limited 
or  finite  universe.  And  such  a  universe,  by  its  very  nature, 
cannot  be  eternal;  nor  could  it  have  been  self-originated. 

Furthermore,  this  process  of  reasoning,  with  its  inevitable 
conclusion  cannot  be  set  aside  by  the  contention  that  not  any 
one  thing,  from  electron  to  star,  is  dependent  upon  any  other 
one  thing  for  support,  but  that  every  single  thing  is,   in  its 


Evidence  from  Dependence  79 

last  analysis,  supported  by  the  universal  whole. 

While  this  is  indeed  scientifically  true,  and  would,  in  a 
sustained  argument  like  this,  make  the  problem  more  com- 
plex and  the  successive  steps  in  the  reasoning  less  apparent, 
it  by  no  means  alters  the  mathematically  certain  conclusion. 
The  dependence  none  the  less,  but  rather  more  so,  still  exists, 
only  in  much  greater  complexities  than  in  our  Illustration. 
Each  depends  upon  all  and  all  depend  upon  each,  thus  leav- 
ing all  Its  parts  mutually  interdependent,  and,  therefore,  nec- 
essarily relative  and  dependent  in  the  universal  whole. 

Upon  what,  then,  must  the  great  whole  of  these  mutually 
interdependent  parts  of  the  dependent  universe  depend  for  its 
support?  Or,  upon  what  does  the  last  link  of  these  supposed 
supports,  and,  therefore,  the  whole  chain,  depend  for  sup- 
port? Why  not  accept  the  only  tenable  postulate,  that  of 
an  infinite,  independent,  absolute,  eternal  and  almighty^  Will 
— that  of  the  God  of  Scripture?  His  acknowledged  existence 
alone  not  only  makes  intelligible  and  resolves  this  complex  and 
perplexing  problem,  but  it  alone  can  fill  the  otherwise  in- 
satiable yearnings  of  the  human  heart. 

Therefore,  the  material  universe  Is  shown  by  this  line  of 
argument  necessarily  to  be  dependent  or  conditioned  and 
finite,  and  therefore  a  temporal  existence. 

2      ACTION  OF  GRAVITATION  AN   EVIDENCE  OF  FINITENESS  AND 

DEPENDENCE 

Another  point  in  proof  that  the  universe  is  finite,  which 
should  be  considered  in  this  connection,  is  based  upon  the 
action  of  gravitation.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  wording 
of  the  heading  to  this  subdivision  of  the  present  chapter  is 
Evidence  from  Apparently  Simultaneous  or  Synchronous  De- 
pendence. By  this  we  foreshadowed  what  we  shall  here  de- 
velop; namely,  that  the  force  of  gravitation  does  not  act  in- 
stantaneously, as  is  rather  generally  supposed.  As  in  the 
case  of  light,  heat  and  electricity,  to  which  It  Is  undoubtedly 
akin,  the  element  of  time  enters  into  Its  transmission  or  action. 
Laplace  estimated  It  as  acting  with  a  velocity  considerably 
greater  than  that  of  light.  But  more  recent  estimates  or 
calculations  place  its  velocitv  of  action  in  the  same  order  as 
that  of  the  transmission  of  light.     Thus  M.  Henri  Poincare 


8o  Creation  Ex  Nihiio 

makes  its  velocity  of  action  about  that  of  light.  The  mathe- 
matician Gerber  reached  the  same  conclusion,  basing  his  cal- 
culation upon  the  motion  of  Mercury  in  perihelion.  This, 
then,  is  additional  evidence  that  the  universe  is  finite  in  ex- 
tent. 

But  not  only  would  the  action  of  gravitation  in  an  in- 
finite universe  have  to  be  infinite  in  velocity,  or  instantaneous, 
but  it  would  also  have  to  be  infinite  in  extent  or  force.  But  as 
this  is  fixed  and  even  measurable,  its  basis  or  mass  of  action 
must  also  be  finite  and  fixed. 

If  the  universe  were  infinite,  its  motions  or  attractions  (if 
such  there  could  be)  would,  moreover,  have  to  be  in  perfect 
balance,  by  instantaneous  action.  Nor,  as  a  whole  at  least, 
could  it  even  be  in  motion,  as  we  shall  show;  and  therefore 
the  very  presence  of  attraction  and  motion,  is  itself  an  evi- 
dence that  it  is  finite.  But,  as  gravitation  is  not  instantaneous, 
this,  at  any  rate,  indicates  that  its  motions  or  attractions  are  not 
thus  balanced,  and  that  there  is  some  universal  adjustment  of 
position  constantly  going  on.  And  this  itself  is  an  index  of 
relativity,  and  therefore  of  finiteness.  Moreover,  the  very 
internal  attractions  and  revolutions  are  local  evidences  of  this 
great  truth,  that  the  universe  is  in  motion  everywhere,  and 
hence  that  it  therefore  is  necessarily  a  finite  entity.  Some- 
what in  line  with  this  is  the  conclusion  of  Seeliger,  from  the 
apparently  invariable  nature  of  gravitation,  that  the  universe 
must  be  finite. 

The  fact  that  a  dependent  or  conditioned  existence  must 
necessarily  be  finite,  needs  no  further  proof  in  this  connec- 
tion. Hence,  as  we  have  in  the  above  argument  shown  the 
universe  to  be  a  dependent  or  conditioned  and  therefore 
finite  existence,  we  hold  that  this  is  equivalent  to  showing  that 
it  must  have  been  created,  and  that  it  must  still  be  supported 
or  sustained  by  an  independent,  absolute,  infinite,  eternal,  and 
therefore  uncreated,  spiritual  Being — a  supreme  Will. 

n  EVIDENCE  FROM  SUCCESSIVE  OR  CHRONO- 
LOGICAL DEPENDENCE,  NECESSITATING 
AN  UNCAUSED  ETERNAL  ORIGINATOR 

In  addition  to  the  simultaneous  dependence  spoken  of  above, 
there  is  also  a  successive  or  chronological  dependence.     This 


Evidence  from  Dependence  8l 

might  be  spoken  of  as  that  of  so-called  cause  and  effect,  by 
which  term  it  will  more  readily  be  recognized.  This  de- 
pendence we  shall  now  proceed  to  illustrate  and  explain. 


I       THE    LAW   GOVERNING   SECONDARY   CAUSES  ILLUSTRATED 

In  Striking  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  balls,  arranged  in 
a  straight  line  one  against  the  other,  every  ball  to  the  very 
last  is  set  in  motion.     The  last  ball  in  the  series  receives  the 
impact  of   the   ball   immediately  preceding   it.      Its  motion   is 
the  effect  of  the  impact  of  this  preceding  ball,  while  that  im- 
pact is  spoken  of  as  the  cause  of  that  motion.     And,  because 
there  is  no  ball  after  this  last  ball,  its  motion  remains  an  ef- 
fect without  in  turn  becoming  an  apparent  cause.     With  the 
second  last  ball  the  case  is  different.     Its  motion  is  the  effect 
of  the  impact  of  the  third  last  ball ;  but  it  in  turn,  by  its  impact 
upon   the  last  ball,   becomes  the  apparent  cause  of  that  last 
ball's  motion.     So   the   motion  of   the  third  last  ball   is  the 
cause  of  the  motion  of  the  second  last  ball,  while  it  is  the 
effect  of  the  motion  of  the  fourth  last  ball.    The  same  is  true 
of  all  the  other  balls  back  to  the  second  from  the  beginning 
of  the  series.     The  motion  of  the  first  ball  is  thus  also  the 
apparent  cause  of  the  motion  of  the  second  ball  in  the  series; 
but  it  is  not  the  effect  of  the  motion  of  a  ball  preceding  it. 
Its  motion  comes  from  a  source  altogether  different.     It  comes 
from  the  impact  of  the  mind-directed  blow  with  which  it  was 
struck.    And,  unless  it  had  been  moved  by  some  external  force, 
that  first  ball,  according  to  the  law  of  inertia,  would  have  re- 
mained forever  at  rest.    And  with  it,  all  the  other  balls  of  the 
series  M^ould  also  have  remained  at  rest.     There  would  then 
have  been  no  motion  in  the  whole  series,  either  as  cause  or  as 
effect.     In  other  words,  the  motions  of  all  the  balls,  whether 
viewed   as   causes  or   as   effects,   were   caused   by   that   mind- 
directed   blow.     All   these  motions   are,   therefore,    really   ef- 
fects of  the  impact  of  that  blow;  but,  strictly  speaking,  causes 
they  are  not.    The  only  real  cause  is  the  director  of  the  blow. 
To  be  sure,  in  logic  and  in  every-day  life,  we  speak  of  them 
as  causes  producing  succeeding  motions  as  effects.     But  when 
we  view  them  in  relation  to  the  mind-directed  blow  or  to  the 
director  of  that  blow,  they  are  effects  only,  although  by  com- 


82  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

parison  with  the  blow  or  its  director  as  the  first  cause  they 
may  be  spoken  of  as  second  or  secondary  causes.  It  is,  of 
course,  readily  seen  that  these  motions,  considered  as  also 
causes  of  other  motions,  are  totally  different  from  the  real 
cause,  the  will  that  directed  the  blow  which  produced  them 
all. 

There  is  also  another  point  that  needs  explanation.  The 
impact  of  the  second  last  ball  moved  the  last  ball,  that  of 
the  third  last  ball  really  moved  the  last  two  balls,  that  of 
the  fourth  last  ball  moved  the  last  three,  etc.  Or,  the  energy 
of  the  second  last  ball  viewed  as  an  effect  may  be  said  to  be 
greater  by  the  energy  of  its  own  simple  motion  than  it  is  as  a 
cause.  As  an  effect  of  the  impact  of  the  preceding  ball,  its 
energy  includes  both  its  own  motion  and  that  of  the  ball  that 
it  moves.  As  a  cause,  its  energy  moves  only  the  last  ball.  So, 
the  energy  of  the  third  last  ball  as  a  cause  is  equal  to  the  energy 
of  the  motion  of  the  second  last  ball  as  given — which  of  course 
includes  that  of  the  last  ball.  Or,  in  other  words,  the  energy 
of  the  motion  of  the  third  last  ball  viewed  as  a  cause,  is  equal 
to  the  energy  of  the  second  last  ball  viewed  as  an  effect.  But 
the  energy  of  the  third  last  ball  viewed  as  an  efifect  is  equal  to 
the  energy  of  the  second  last  ball  viewed  as  an  effect  plus  that 
of  its  own  simple  motion.  Or,  the  energy  of  any  ball  as  an 
effect  is  greater  by  its  own  simple  motion  than  it  is  as  a  cause — 
no  more  and  no  less.  The  energy,  therefore,  grows  less  in 
an  arithmetical  ratio,  as  we  move  from  the  initial  impact  to- 
ward the  last  ball  of  the  series.  Conversely,  as  we  pass  from 
the  last  ball  toward  the  initial 'impact  the  energy  correspond- 
ingly increases.  The  energy  of  the  first  ball  is,  of  course, 
exactly  equal  to  the  energy  of  all  the  balls  in  the  series  plus 
the  energy  of  its  own  simple  motion.  And  this  is  the  energy 
as  an  effect  that  came  from  the  impact  of  the  blow  as  a  cause. 
Nor  has  any  ball  any  energy  apart  from  this  impact.  But  how 
much  more  energy  the  one  had  who  directed  the  blow,  and 
which  he  might  have  imparted  through  a  blow  to  this  series 
of  balls  or  to  any  number  or  other  kinds  of  series,  is  hard 
to  tell.  In  other  words,  the  measure  of  the  energy  imparted 
to  this  series  of  balls  is  not  at  all  likely  the  measure  of  the 
energy  of  which  the  striker  was  capable  or  which  he  possessed. 
This  illustration  may  seem  rather  long,  but  it  is  so  in  the 
interests  of  clearness. 


Evidence  from  Dependence  83 

2      ALL    SERIES    OF    SECONDARY    CAUSES    FINITE,    LEADING    UP 
TO  AN   INFINITE   FIRST  CAUSE 

If  we  could  thus  analyze  events,  or  so-called  effects,  in 
nature  and  inerrently  trace  them  to  their  immediate  causes 
in  all  their  complexities,  and  then  likewise  trace  the  so- 
called  causes  to  their  complex  causes,  etc.,  etc.,  we  should  at 
last  arrive  at  a  so-called  cause  or  complexity  of  causes  that 
was  not  produced  in  a  similar  way.  It  would  be  the  first 
of  the  indefinite  series  of  so-called  causes,  which  itself  is 
caused  by  an  only  real,  because  uncaused,  cause,  properly  called 
the  First  Cause.  This  series  of  successive  causes  must  be 
finite,  because  no  number  of  them  could  constitute  an  in- 
finite even  as  we  could  have  no  infinite  number  in  a  row  of 
balls.  This  last  point  will  become  more  clear  in  connection 
with   an  argument  near  the  end  of  our  next  chapter. 

That  First  Cause,  arrived  at  by  the  above  argument,  is 
really  the  only  cause  that,  in  a  sense,  fully  matches  the  fol- 
lowing definition  of  cause  by  John  Stuart  Mill.  In  treating 
of  causation  in  connection  with  sequence  in  his  great  work 
on  Logic,  he  says,  "We  may  define,  therefore,  the  cause  of 
a  phenomenon,  to  be  the  antecedent  or  the  concurrence  of 
antecedents,  on  which  it  is  invariably  and  unconditionally  conse- 
quent" {A  System  of  Logic,  Eighth  Edition,  1888,  p.  245). 
Of  no  secondary  cause  can  it  be  truly  said  that  it  is  that  upon 
which  a  phenomenon  or  an  effect  invariably  and  uncondition- 
ally is  consequent  or  depends.  No  secondary  cause  is  a  pure 
cause,  itself  being  conditioned  by  preceding  and  concurring 
causes.  Nor  is  there,  therefore,  any  unconditional  connection 
between  such  cause  and  its  associated  consequent.  But  of  the 
great  First  Cause,  as  indicated  above,  as  a  pure  and  uncondi- 
tioned cause,  and  one  on  which  events  are  therefore  uncondi- 
tionally consequent,  this  definition  of  cause  by  Mill  is  strictly 

true. 

The  whole  series  of  successive  secondary  causes  would  thus 
be  found  to  flow  out  of  the  one  First  Cause,  and  all  the 
energy,  both  in  the  individuals  and  in  the  grand  aggregate, 
of  the  succession,  would  be  found  to  have  been  imparted  to  it 
by  that  First  Cause — as  shown  in  our  illustration.  And,  of 
course,  it  should  be  remembered  that  each  successive  complex 
cause  as  we  go  backward  in  the  series  is  greater  as  an  effect. 


84  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

by  its  own  simple  energy,  than  it  is  as  a  cause.  So  each  cause, 
as  we  go  backwards,  as  a  cause  contains  all  the  energy  of  all 
the  succeeding  effects  (or  causes)  to  the  very  end  of  the  series. 
What  inconceivable  energy  must  there  have  been  then  in  the 
first  of  these  ever  more  and  more  complex  secondary  causes! 
But,  as  the  energy  of  the  first  in  the  series — that  of  the  whole 
series — is  not  the  measure  of  the  possible  energy  of  the  great 
First  Cause,  how  infinitely  great  must  that  power  be  which 
that  First  Cause,  or  the  infinite  God,  possesses — for  the  power 
of  an  absolute  Being  must  necessarily  be  infinite! 

3       THE    EXISTENCE   OF  ONE   ABSOLUTE   FIRST   CAUSE  A  NECES- 
SARY  POSTULATE   OF   REASON 

That  there  must  be  a  First  Cause  back  of  all  secondary 
causes  is  so  necessary  even  to  the  very  constitution  of  the 
human  mind,  that  most  really  great  thinkers  are  driven  to 
that  Cause  as  the  only  possible  ultimate  explanation  of  the 
fleeting  phenomena  that  we  call  the  universe.  Although  the 
great  philosopher  Immanuel  Kant  (i  724-1 804)  endeavored, 
by  the  most  subtle  reasoning  of  which  even  he  was  capable, 
to  show  that  a  positive  proof  of  a  necessary  Being  was  im- 
possible, he  was  nevertheless  driven  by  an  inexorable  logic  to 
acknowledge  the  necessary  existence  of  a  supreme  or  ultimate 
causality  in  which  alone  the  mind  can  rest.  He  reasoned 
thus:  "We  see  things  around  us  change,  arise,  and  pass 
away;  they,  or  their  condition,  must  therefore  have  a  cause. 
The  same  demand  must  again  »be  made  of  the  cause  itself — as 
a  datum  of  experience.  Now  it  is  natural  that  we  should 
place  the  highest  causality  just  where  we  place  supreme  causal- 
ity, in  that  being  which  contains  the  conditions  of  all  possible 
effects,  and  the  conception  of  which  is  so  simple  as  that  of  an 
all-embracing  reality.  This  highest  cause,  then,  we  regard  as 
absolutely  necessary,  because  we  find  it  absolutely  necessary  to 
rise  to  it,  and  do  not  discover  any  reason  for  proceeding  be- 
yond it"  {Critique  of  Pure  Reason^  Translated  by  J.  M.  D. 
Meiklejohn,    1902,  p.  442). 

This  acknowledgment  of  some  necessarily  unconditioned  or 
absolute  existence — the  ultimate  Cause  of  all  things — the  great 
Koenigsburg  philosopher  finds  it  necessary  to  make  as  the 
logical  result  of  the  acknowledgment  of  any  existence  whatso- 


Evidence  from  Dependence  85 

ever,  as  expressed  In  the  following  words:  "If  we  admit  the 
existence  of  some  one  thing,  whatever  it  may  be,  we  must  also 
admit  that  there  is  something  which  exists  necessarily.  For 
what  is  contingent  exists  only  under  the  condition  of  some 
other  thing,  which  is  its  cause;  and  from  this  we  must  go  on 
to  conclude  the  existence  of  a  cause,  which  is  not  contingent 
and  which  consequently  exists  necessarily  and  unconditionally. 
Such  is  the  argument  by  which  reason  justifies  its  advance  to- 
ward a  primal  being"    (Ibid.,  pp.  438-9)- 

Even  Herbert  Spencer  was  driven,  by  the  very  necessity  of 
reason,  from  conditioned  to  unconditioned  existence,  which  is 
equivalent  to  saying,  from  caused  or  secondary  causes  to  an 
uncaused  or  First  Cause — to  which  matter  or  the  physical  uni- 
verse is,  of  course,  related  as  an  effect.  Though  that  First 
Cause,  according  to  his  philosophy,  is  unknowable  and  even 
inconceivable,  such  a  conclusion,  on  the  part  of  so  great  an  ex- 
ponent of  the  agnostic  philosophy,  has  no  little  weight.  The 
following  confession  was  made  by  Spencer:  "As  on  conceiv- 
ing any  bounded  space,  there  arises  a  nascent  consciousness  of 
space  outside  the  bounds;  so,  when  we  think  of  any  definite 
cause,  there  arises  a  nascent  consciousness  of  a  cause  behind 
it;  and  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other  this  nascent  conscious- 
ness is  in  substance  like  that  which  suggests  it,  though  with- 
out form.  The  momentum  of  thought  carries  us  beyond  con- 
ditioned existence  to  unconditioned  existence;  and  this  ever 
persists  in  us  as  the  body  of  a  thought  to  w^hich  we  can  give 
no  shape"   (First  Principles,  Sixth  Edition,  1900,  p.  79). 

And,  of  course,  the  same  inexorable  logic  that  drives  us 
to  a  First  Cause  compels  us  also  to  acknowledge  that  that 
First  Cause  must  necessarily  be  infinite,  absolute  and  eternal, 
as  we  have  shown.  Therefore,  Herbert  Spencer  was  forced 
also  to  acknowledge  these  truths. 

These  conclusions  Spencer  reached  by  a  perfectly  logical 
process;  and  if  he  had  continued  to  rely  upon  his  own  reason- 
ing on  this  point,  he  would  have  been  saved  from  some 
dilemmas  and  inconsistencies  to  which  he  was  led.  But  he 
was  apparently  led  astray  by  Dean  Mansel's  faulty  reason- 
ing as  to  First  Cause,  the  Infinite  and  the  Absolute,  as  set 
forth  in  that  author's  Limits  of  Religious  Thought. 

One  of  these  inconsistencies  to  which  Spencer  was  led  by 
following  Dean  Mansel,  is,  that  of  contending  that  the  In- 


86  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

finite  and  Absolute,  the  complete  and  perfect,  Is  totally  un- 
knowable. This  contradiction  was  readily  recognized  by  the 
keen  analytic  mind  of  James  Martineau,  who  was  moved 
to  make  the  following  comment:  "We  are  told  in  one  breath 
that  this  Being  must  be  in  every  sense  'perfect,  complete,  total 
— including  in  itself  all  power,  and  transcending  all  law'; 
and  in  another  that  this  perfect  omnipotent  One  is  totally  in- 
capable of  revealing  any  one  of  an  infinite  store  of  attributes. 
Need  we  point  out  the  contradictions  which  this  position  in- 
volves? If  you  abide  by  it,  you  deny  the  Absolute  and  Infinite 
in  the  very  act  of  aflirming  it;  for,  in  debarring  the  First 
Cause  from  self-revelation,  you  impose  a  limit  on  its  nature. 
And  in  the  very  act  of  declaring  the  First  Cause  incognizable, 
you  do  not  permit  it  to  remain  unknown"  {Essays  Philosophical 
and  Theological,   190-1). 

The  fallacy  of  Spencer  lies  in  the  various  contents  of  the 
words  knowable  and  unknowable.  We  may  know  with  abso- 
lute certainty  that  a  thing  exists,  but  such  knowledge  does  not 
necessarily  imply  that  we  know  all  about  the  thing  itself. 
Indeed,  we  may  know  practically  nothing  about  the  thing. 
Thus  we  may  know  with  certainty  that  a  light  is  shining  this 
moment  of  the  night  out  there  on  yonder  horizon.  But, 
whether  that  light  be  that  of  a  lamp,  an  electric  light,  a  will- 
o'-the-wisp,  or  even  a  star,  I  might  not  be  able  to  determine 
before  it  disappears.  And,  even  if  I  could  find  it  definitely  to 
be  one  or  other  of  these,  I  might  still  have  but  a  limited 
knowledge  of  it.  I  may  thus  be  very  certain  that  I  see  a 
light,  but  may  know  only  very  little  of  its  real  nature.  There- 
fore, in  one  sense  that  light  is  knowable ,  and  even  known;  in 
another  sense  it  is  unknowable.  So  in  speaking  of  the  Abso- 
lute and  Eternal — the  Creator  and  Upholder  of  all — no  fact 
can  be  more  certain  than  that  He  exists,  as  all  nature  ever 
testifies  in  myriad  forms.  And  yet,  we  may  be  able  by  search- 
ing to  find  out  very  little  of  His  real  nature  and  Being.  In 
the  former  sense  He  is  certainly  knowable;  in  the  latter  sense 
He  may  as  truly  be  spoken  of  as  unknowable,  and  in  that  par- 
tial sense  at  least  as  the  Unknowable  or  the  unknowable  One. 
It  seems  passing  strange  that  some  great  thinkers  have  thus 
lost  themselves  in  the  bewildering  mazes  of  their  own  ratiocina- 
tions! But  they  had  a  preconceived  theory  to  establish  in  most 
cases,  and  therefore  allowed  their  biased  views  to  lead  them 


Evidence  from  Dependence  87 

to    conclusions    which    they    often    inadvertently    contradicted 
elsewhere  in  their  writings. 

We  have  thus  shown,  from  the  very  nature  of  causality, 
from  the  existence  of  secondary  causes,  or  the  very  existence 
of  physical  phenomena,  that  there  must  be  a  First  Cause. 
We  have  seen  that  this  necessary  existence  of  a  First  Cause  has 
its  counterpart  in  the  very  constitution  of  the  human  mind, 
as  a  necessary  postulate  of  reason.  We  have  also  seen  that 
the  existence  of  such  a  First  Cause  is  acknowledged  by  many 
of  the  world's  greatest  thinkers,  often  apparently  in  the  face 
of  what  might  appear  to  be  their  own  preconceptions.  And 
we  have  shown  that  that  First  Cause  must  necessarily  be 
infinite,  while  the  series  of  secondary  causes  must  of  equal 
necessity  be  finite.  We  shall  now  further  contemplate  that 
First  Cause  in  the  light  of  secondary  causes  and  in  the  light 
of  what  we  have  already  said.  And  such  contemplation,  from 
whatever  angle  we  view  that  Cause,  will  not  only  still  further 
strengthen  and  confirm  conviction  as  to  the  reality  of  His 
existence  and  His  relation  to  the  universe,  but  it  will  also  help 
to  a  better  and  more  concrete  conception  of  His  Greatness. 

HI     SOME    IMPORTANT    AND    NECESSARY    DE- 
DUCTIONS AS  TO  THE  FIRST  CAUSE 

The  known  universe  is,  indeed,  incalculably  vast.  But 
let  us  for  the  moment  suppose  it  to  be  but  a  tiny  island 
in  the  mightier  archipelago  of  the  great  ocean  of  im- 
mensity. Our  galactic  system  with  the  rotations  and  com- 
plex revolutions  of  its  stars  and  other  bodies — the  universe 
known  to  man — might  then,  in  comparison  with  such  an  im- 
measurably greater  whole,  be  like  an  infinitesimal  molecule 
with  its  atoms  and  electrons,  in  ceaseless  gyrations;  as,  in- 
deed, according  to  our  latest  science,  every  molecule  is  a 
miniature  or  infinitesimal  universe.  The  ultimate  point  of 
minute  visibility  to  the  human  eye  might  perhaps  be  but  a 
vanishing  point  from  the  upper  cosmic  universe  to  the  nether 
infinitesimal  universe.  Thus,  like  the  dividing  point  of  the 
upper  and  lower  halves  of  an  hour  glass,  that  ultimate  point 
of  human  vision  might  then  be  considered  the  dividing  point 
between  the  well-nigh  infinite  and  the  so-called  infinitesimal 


88  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

universes,  which  would  constitute  the  two  halves  of  the  great 
unified  whole.  And  the  latter  might  perhaps  relatively  be 
as  great  and  wonderful  in  its  complexities  down  to  its  minutest 
divisibility  as  the  former  would  be  up  to  its  ultimate  unity. 
But,  even  if  that  were  so,  if  we  should  trace  our  series  of 
complex  secondary  causes,  from  the  revolving  electron  (or 
perhaps  even  minuter  ultimate  unit)  up  through  the  cosmic 
whole  of  such  a  supposed  immeasurably  higher  all-compre- 
hensive universe,  we  should  nevertheless  come  to  the  point 
where  the  First  Cause  began  to  operate  upon  the  first  of  the 
secondary  causes  and  through  it  upon  all  to  the  end  of  time. 
And,  at  every  step,  all  the  more  exalted  would  our  concep- 
tion of  that  Being  become.  His  almightiness  would  then  ap- 
pear to  the  searcher  only  as  greater  almightiness;  His  great- 
ness and  ways  as  past  finding  out !  But,  however  far  we 
should  ascend  upwards  in  space  or  go  backwards  in  time,  we 
should  never  get  away  from  this  Cause  of  all.  We  should 
rather  approach  ever  nearer,  perhaps  almost  unto  the  very 
presence  of  this  eternal  Cause. 


I       THE  ABSOLUTE,   PARTIALLY   KNOWABLE,    FIRST   CAUSE  ONE, 
CONTINUALLY    SUSTAINING    ALL    THINGS 

The  further  back  we  should  trace  secondary  causes  toward 
the  First  or  True  Cause,  as  already  intimated,  the  more  energy 
should  we  meet  and  the  mightier  should  such  secondary  causes 
be  found  to  be.  And,  again  we  emphasize,  as  the  number 
of  such  regressions  must  be  finite,  we  should  at  last  have  to 
come  to  the  infinite  First  or  uncaused  Cause.  Moreover, 
such  a  Cause,  instead  of  being  contrary  to  the  idea  of  a  true 
cause,  would  be  the  only  Cause  that  could  match  that  idea. 
But,  as  a  cause  can  be  known  to  us  partly  indirectly  by  its 
effects  and  partly  directly  as  itself  an  effect,  and  therefore 
only  partially  by  its  effects  alone,  it  follows  that,  at  least  in 
our  present  state,  we  should  never  be  able  fully  to  know  an 
uncaused  cause,  because  it  would  in  no  sense  also  be  an  ef- 
fect. Therefore,  while  man  exists  in  a  caused  and  causing 
order  of  nature,  he  can  never  ascend  to,  or  directly  and  fully 
know,  the  infinite  personal  First  Cause,  God.  "Canst  thou 
by  searching  find  out  God  ?  Canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty 
unto  perfection?"    (Job    11:7.)     The  "I   Am  That   I   Am" 


Evidence  from  Dependence  89 

can  really  be  known  by  Revelation  alone,  and  in  so  far  only 
as  He  enters  into  voluntary  relation  w^ith  us — especially  in 
the  history  of  redemption — although  He  may  faintly  be  traced 
by  His  unmistakable  footprints  upon  created  nature. 

Thus,  every  present  single  event  in  nature  may  be  con- 
sidered as  the  last  in  an  intricate  indefinite  chronological 
sequence  of  events  connected  up  together,  as  causes  and  ef- 
fects, with  the  Great  First  Cause  of  them  all.  And  all  simul- 
taneous events  may  be  spoken  of  as  the  last  in  an  indefinite 
number  of  such  sequences,  synchronously  parallel  and  con- 
nected up  together  with  the  same  Great  First  Cause  of  all 
the  sequences.  And,  thus,  that  First  Cause  not  only  originated 
universal  nature,  but  also  continues  to  sustain  it;  and  with  the 
withholding  of  that  sustaining  power  it  would  necessarily 
instantaneously  cease  to  be.  That  Cause  must,  therefore,  be 
the  ultimate  reality  of  all  philosophic  search,  and  the  creative 
and  sustaining  Deity  of  Revelation. 

If  one  were  to  reject  this  profound  truth  as  to  the  neces- 
sarily eternal  and  absolute  one  First  Cause,  he  would  find 
himself  in  an  utterly  inextricable  dilemma  of  reason.  He 
would  either  have  to  assume  an  impossible  infinite  chain,  or 
series  of  infinite  chains,  of  such  successive  and  synchronous 
integral  causes,  or  he  would  find  his  chain,  or  series  of  chains, 
of  causes  end  in  some  equally  impossible  nothingness.  This 
reasoning  shows  the  very  palpable  absurdity  of  any  endeavor 
to  account  for  the  universe  by  any  cause  short  of  a  creative 
non-material  Deity. 

Moreover,  the  unity  and  uniformity  of  nature,  amidst  the 
universality  and  variety  of  law,  are  an  incontrovertible  evi- 
dence also  that  the  inevitable  logic  of  reason  as  to  the  im- 
possibility of  more  than  one  First  Cause  is  unassailably  con- 
firmed by  nature.  It  was  a  favorite  theory  of  Faraday  that 
the  various  forces  of  nature  have  one  common  origin,  and  that 
they  are  mutually  dependent,  so  that  gravitation,  electricity, 
magnetism,  radiant  heat  and  chemical  force  might  be  con- 
sidered as  only  different  manifestations  of  one  great  funda- 
mental power.  And  it  is  needless  to  say  that  this  bold  theory 
of  the  philosophic  mind  of  Faraday  the  scientist  is  more  and 
more  assuming  the  nature  of  an  established  scientific  fact. 

As  already  noted,  by  the  law  of  gravitation  the  universal 


90  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

whole  and  all  its  synchronous  events  are  bound  together  into 
unity.  They  are  traceable,  as  has  been  said  above,  through 
long  series  of  sequential  secondary  causes  to  one  great  Cause  of 
all,  in  Whom  all  things  are  thus  bound  together.  Whether  the 
number  of  parallel  secondary  causes  thus  diminishes,  as  we 
approach  the  First  Cause,  until  they  end  in  unity,  directly 
acted  upon  by  that  Cause,  or  whether  that  Cause  simultane- 
ously at  the  first  acted  upon  an  indefinite  number  of  such 
secondary  causes  for  the  conducting  of  all  the  operations  of 
nature  for  all  time,  matters  not.  So,  it  matters  not  for  our 
immediate  purpose  whether  the  First  Cause  thus  at  first  im- 
parted to  matter,  after  He  had  created  it,  all  the  energy  for 
all  its  operations  to  the  end  of  time,  as  implied  in  the  law 
of  conservation,  or  whether  He  imparted  only  the  initial 
energy  requisite  for  the  beginnings  of  nature  and  then  super- 
added more  energy  at  special  epochs  from  time  to  time,  or 
whether  He  even  imposed  upon  the  universe  itself  the  poten- 
tialities for  the  development  of  more  and  more  energy,  as 
needed.  All  are  indeed  possible.  One  thing  must,  however, 
inevitably  be  accepted  as  demonstrated;  namely,  that  all  phys- 
ical operations  are  ultimately  from  and  by  the  one  true  Cause, 
the  omnific  Will  of  some  supreme  Creator  and  Upholder  of 
all  things. 


2      WHATEVER    THE    THEORY    OF    CREATION,    ITS    CAUSE    A    SU- 
PREME   PERSONALITY 

From  the  above  argument  it  is  seen  that,  whatever  theory 
one  may  adopt  as  to  the  creation  of  the  universe,  whether  it 
be  that  of  mediate  or  that  of  immediate  creation,  or  that  of 
these  two  combined — directly,  or  indirectly  through  secondary 
causes;  by  an  instantaneous,  a  periodic  or  an  evolutionary 
process, — he  must  necessarily  postulate  a  Personality  back  of 
it  to  make  his  theory  intelligible.  And,  with  this  truth  the 
truly  unbiased  physical  scientist  is  even  compelled  to  agree. 
And  among  those  heartily  so  agreeing  we  find  no  less  an 
authority  than  the  English  naturalist  St.  George  Mivart,  as 
he  often  expressed  himself  in  his  various  writings,  especially 
in  his   Genesis  of  Species. 

Thus  many   of   the   greatest  students   of   nature,   whatever 


Evidence  from  Dependence  91 

may  be  their  religious,  or  even  anti-religious,  prepossessions, 
find  it  necessary  to  admit  that  back  of  all  material  things  there 
is  an  ultimate  immaterial  Cause,  or  that  the  physical  universe, 
w^ith  all  its  energy  and  potentialities,  is  the  created  product 
of  a  supreme  spiritual  Personality. 

Various  attempts  have  also  been  made  by  purely  philo- 
sophico-scientific  explanations  to  set  forth  the  probable  nature 
of  such  a  supreme  spiritual  Personality  and  that  of  the  spirit- 
ual world  and  its  connection  with  the  physical  world.  Thus, 
Frederic  Meyers  considers  the  Spiritual  universe  as  in  actual 
relation  with,  and  as  being  the  source  of  all  the  energy  in,  the 
physical  universe.  Many  very  striking  passages  bearing  upon 
this  point  might  be  cited  from  the  very  suggestive,  even  if  very 
speculative,  work,  entitled  The  Unseen  Universe,  by  Stewart 
and  Tait,  among  the  most  eminent  British  physicists  of  the 
latter  half  of  the  last  century.  But  all  these  merely  specula- 
tive theories  are  only  gropings  after,  or  guesses  at,  a  real  ob- 
jective truth,  without  the  attainment  of  which  the  human 
mind  and  heart  must  forever  wander  about  unsatisfied, — even 
that  truth  or  those  truths  which  the  Christian  holds  are  defi- 
nitely set  forth  in  Revelation  alone.  And  yet  these  gropings 
or  guesses  are  themselves  indirect  evidences  of  the  existence 
and  reality  of  these  truths. 

Somewhat  similar  in  its  nature  to  the  above  theories  is  a 
statement  by  Frank  Harris  in  his  ingenious  mathematical 
work  on  Gravitation,  as  follows:  "As  a  matter  of  fact,  we 
find  ourselves  in  a  three-dimensional  'corner'  of  the  infinite 
universe;  and,  as  above  pointed  out,  are  therefore  as  machines 
incapable  of  motion  in  the  fourth  or  any  higher  dimension 
relatively  to  our  immediate  surroundings:  although  we,  and 
the  whole  of  our  three-dimensional  universe,  are  moving  in 
the  fourth  dimension;  and  it  is  from  the  energy  of  this  four- 
dimensional  great  velocity  that  all  energy  now  existing  in  our 
universe,  was  ultimately  drawn.  Thus,  being  incapable  of 
relative  movement  in  the  fourth  dimension,  we  cannot  per- 
ceive it"  {Gravitation,  p.  90).  Statements  like  the  above 
quotation  indicate,  of  course,  a  groping  after  an  adequate  ex- 
planation for  the  source  of  the  energy  of  the  universe.  And, 
although  rather  fanciful,  they  are  an  evidence  for  the  in- 
adequacy of  human  reason  fully  to  trace  out  God  in  His 
handiwork. 


92  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

3      SUMMARY    OF    CONCLUSIONS   AS    TO    THE    FIRST    CAUSE    OF 

ALL   THINGS 

It  is  seen  that  the  First  Cause  has  been  and  still  is  the  only 
real  cause.  That  Cause  is  still  operating  through  every  sec- 
ondary cause,  as  we  have  said.  Nor  is  there  any  power  or 
force  in  nature  that  is  not  from  and  by  that  Cause.  Every  cos- 
mic w^orld  moves  majestically  with  incredible  velocity  and  in- 
conceivable energy  by  His  power  alone.  Every  vibration, 
whether  underlying  the  phenomena  of  heat,  light,  magnetism, 
electricity  or  gravitation,  is  a  vibration  by  His  energy.  Every 
blossom  at  our  feet  and  every  human  soul  is  radiant  with 
beauty  by  His  power.  His  power  throbs  like  mighty  pulsations 
in  the  intrinsic  motions  of  every  atom  and  beneath  every  liv- 
ing organism  throughout  all  nature,  as  well  as  in  the  revolu- 
tions, individual  and  united,  of  all  worlds.  Truly  beautiful 
and  beautifully  true  are  the  following  words  by  one  of  our 
poetesses : 

"God  of  the  Granite  and  the  Rose! 

Soul  of  the  Sparrow  and  the  Bee! 
The  mighty  tide  of  Being  flows 

Through  countless  channels.  Lord,  from  Thee. 
It  leaps  to  life  in  grass  and  flower. 

Through  every  grade  of  being  runs. 
While  from  Creation's  radiant  towers 

Its  glory  flames  in  Stars  and  Suns." 

Even  His  initial  creative  act  did  not  cease  to  operate  at 
that  great  beginning,  as  plainly  show^n;  but  it  has  continued 
ever  since,  and  shall  do  so  till  He  withholds  His  sustaining 
power.  And  this  is  just  as  true  whether  this  divine  opera- 
tion be  regarded  as  special  providential  acts  or  as  acts  pro- 
vided for  in  His  creative  and  sustaining  media  in  the  form 
of  secondary  causes.  Indeed,  as  with  the  Eternal  there  can 
not  be  a  past  nor  a  future — no  behind  and  no  before — to  Him 
that  creative  act  was  not  an  act  in  time.  Viewed  from  eternity 
it  was  an  eternal  act,  while  viewed  from  these  shores  of 
time  we  may  speak  of  it  as  having  been  exercised  at  the  be- 
ginning, that  is,  the  beginning  of  our  time,  and  as  ending  in 
the  completed  cosmos — and  then  almost  certainly  in  annihila- 


Evidence  from  Dependence  93 

tion  by  Its  withdrawal,  thus  marking  the  end  of  time.  We 
cannot  speak  of  time  in  the  relative  sense  before  creation,  nor 
after  it  will  have  ceased  to  be.  Nor  can  we  therefore  speak 
of  a  creation  as  late  or  early  in  the  thought  of  God.  We 
cannot  separate  thought  or  purpose  from  act  in  an  eternal 
Being,  to  whom  there  are  no  time  relations.  Thus,  all  crea- 
tion, in  all  its  operations,  is  the  present  act  of  the  eternal 
God. 

How  wonderfully  secondary  causes  have  been,  and  are, 
linked  together  in  preparation  for  the  future  of  the  universe, 
may  be  seen  in  energy  stored  up  ages  ago  for  the  use  of 
man.  Thus  the  sun's  energy  stored  up  in  the  beds  of  coal, 
like  electricity  in  a  battery,  now  drives  the  spindles  and 
wheels  of  industry.  Indeed,  by  searching  we  might  thus 
trace  all  our  available  energy  back  through  indefinite  ages  to 
the  sun,  and  thence  perhaps  still  further  back  into  the  sup- 
posed aeons  of  the  provident,  developing  cosmos.  But  this, 
if  we  could  follow  upwards  and  backwards  far  enough,  would 
lead  us  also  to  the  Source  of  all  energy,  the  great  Energizer  of 
all.  And  nowhere  throughout  our  search  should  we  come  upon 
any  self-created  energy  any  more  than  we  should  come  upon 
any  self-created  atom  of  matter. 


IV    SEVERAL  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED 

Before  closing  this  chapter  it  is  in  place  to  answer  several 
supposed  objections  to  points  involved  in  our  general  argu- 
ment. 

I  Because  of  its  connection  with  the  point  last  discussed 
above,  we  shall  first  consider  the  objection  based  upon  the  ap- 
parent difficulty  involved  in  the  relation  of  an  absolute  or 
infinite  Creator  to  such  a  dependent  and  finite  creation.  The 
relation  of  Creator  to  creature,  Sir  William  Hamilton  and 
some  others  have  held,  would  limit  the  Creator.  The  act  of 
creation  on  the  part  of  a  Creator,  it  is  contended,  would 
necessitate  or  indicate  a  change  in  His  Being.  Therefore, 
such  an  act  as  is  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  creation  ex  nihilo, 
is  declared  to  be  impossible  from  the  very  nature  of  Deity,  un- 
less perchance  He  created  from  His  own  substance.  Hence, 
in  the  philosophy  of  these  men,  creation  could  mean  no  more 


94  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

than  an  emanation ;  and  the  created  product  would  therefore,  in 
a  sense,  be  a  part  of  God. 

Thus  Sir  William  Hamilton  makes  the  following  state- 
ment on  this  point:  *Xet  us  suppose  the  very  crisis  of  crea- 
tion. Can  we  realize  it  to  ourselves,  in  thought,  that,  the 
moment  after  the  universe  came  into  manifested  being,  there 
was  a  larger  complement  of  existence  in  the  universe  and  its 
Author  together,  than  there  was,  the  moment  before,  in  the 
Deity  himself  alone?  This  we  cannot  imagine.  What  I  have 
now  said  of  our  conceptions  of  creation,  holds  true  of  our 
conceptions  of  annihilation.  We  can  conceive  no  real  an- 
nihilation— no  absolute  sinking  of  something  into  nothing. 
.  .  .  All  that  there  is  now  actually  of  existence  in  the  uni- 
verse, we  conceive  as  having  virtually  existed,  prior  to  crea- 
tion, in  the  Creator;  and  in  imagining  the  universe  to  be  an- 
nihilated by  its  Author,  we  can  only  imagine  this,  as  the 
retractation  of  an  outward  energy  into  power.  All  this  shows 
how  impossible  it  is  for  the  human  mind  to  think  aught  that 
it  thinks,  as  non-existent  either  in  time  past  or  in  time  fu- 
ture" {Lectures  on  Metaphysics  and  Logic,  1859,  Vol.  II., 
p.  406).  And,  in  another  connection,  the  same  philosopher 
expresses  himself  thus:  "The  sum  of  being  (actual  and  po- 
tential) now  extant  in  the  mental  and  material  worlds,  to- 
gether with  that  in  their  Creator,  and  the  sum  of  being  (actual 
and  potential)  in  the  Creator  alone,  before  and  after  these 
worlds  existed,  is  necessarily  thought  as  precisely  the  same" 
{Ibid.,  p.  539).  This  supposed  limitation  of  an  absolute 
Creator  is  epigrammatically  expressed  in  the  following  words 
of  Dean  Mansel:  "A  Cause  cannot,  as  such,  be  absolute: 
the  Absolute  cannot,  as  such,  be  a  cause"  {Limits  of  Religious 
Thought,  American   Edition,    i860,  p.   77). 

The  error  in  this  reasoning  is  traceable  to  an  erroneous 
notion  of  causation  and  of  the  Absolute,  into  an  extended  dis- 
cussion of  which  It  is  not  our  province  here  to  enter.  A  brief 
statement  to  point  out  its  fallacy  will,  however,  surely  be  in 
place. 

Briefly  stated,  mere  relation  of  a  finite  to  an  infinite  can- 
not limit  the  infinite,  unless  it  were  a  necessary  relation. 
Finiteness  in  the  extension  of  matter  cannot  limit  the  infinite 
Cause  to  whom  extension  cannot  be  ascribed.  The  Infinite 
Creator's  finite  act  in  creation  cannot  limit  His   infinity  in 


Evidence  from  Dependence  95 

power,  etc.,  and  can  therefore  not  involve  any  essential  or 
inward  change  in  Him.  As  the  act  was  not  a  necessary  act, 
but  a  voluntary  one,  and  as  it  was,  viewed  from  eternity,  an 
eternal  act,  which  is  not  separable  from  the  thought  of  the 
eternal  Actor  or  Creator,  it  can  in  no  sense  be  viewed  as  a 
change  in  His  eternal,  changeless  Being.  Indeed,  by  the  very 
limitations  of  our  minds  and  of  human  speech  we  even  can- 
not here  reason  without  involving  other  difficulties  on  this 
transcendent  subject  as  related  to  the  unconditioned  Creator 
— a  fact  already  spoken  of. 

Moreover,  the  very  conception  of  such  a  relation  of  the 
infinite  Creator  to  His  creation,  like  that  of  these  men,  im- 
plies a  limitation  of  His  almightiness.  And  such  would  in 
so  far  also  necessarily  make  of  the  infinite  Creator  a  finite 
Being.  And,  of  course,  to  speak  of  an  infinite  as  in  any 
sense  limited  or  finite  is  a  palpable  absurdity.  Surely,  a  Deity 
that  could  not  create  worlds,  or  anything  else  He  chose  to 
create,  absolutely  or  without  the  use  of  previously  existing 
materials  or  even  His  own  substance,  could  not  be  conceived 
of  as  omnipotent.  The  reasoning  of  these  men  would  make 
of  the  Creator  a  Being  with  imposed  limitations,  such  as  we 
find  in  ourselves.  But,  by  what  or  whom  imposed?  No,  the 
Creator,  by  the  very  nature  of  His  infinite  and  eternal  Being, 
would  necessarily  have  to  be  unlimited  in  His  power  of  crea- 
tion and  in  any  relation  whatsoever  toward  such  creation. 
He  would  also  be  free  to  create  or  not  to  create,  to  annihilate 
or  not  to  annihilate.  Nor  would  His  Being  or  power  be  in 
any  way  limited  in  or  by  such  creation.  He  would  be  neither 
more  nor  less  before,  during  or  after  creation,  than  He  is  in 
His  changeless  and  eternal  Being  alone  or  apart  from  any 
such  creation  or  such  consideration.  His  absoluteness,  and 
hence  His  absolutely  free  will,  necessitates  this  conclusion. 

The  question  as  to  whether  such  a  creation  as  a  purely 
voluntary  act  of  a  Deity — a  creation  to  which  He  sustains  no 
necessary  relation — can  be  understood  or  even  conceived  by 
us,  is  a  very  different  matter.  Such  a  conception  would  nat- 
urally be  beyond  our  own  thus  necessary  limitations,  and 
therefore  beyond  the  reach  of  human  consciousness.  But  that 
would  not  place  it  above  our  reach  as  a  conclusion  or  deduc- 
tion of  reason,  nor  would  it,  of  course,  in  the  least  alter 
or  affect  the  reality.     And  if  Hamilton,  and  others  who  have 


96  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

held  to  views  like  his,  had  thus  confined  their  reasoning  to  the 
possibility  or  impossibility  of  the  mind  to  conceive  such  crea- 
tion and  such  relation  of  Creator  to  creature,  their  conclu- 
sions might  be  accepted  in  a  general  way  upon  their  face  value. 
But,  in  applying  their  reasoning  to  the  reality  itself  and 
drawing  conclusions  as  to  that  reality,  in  virtually  identify- 
ing the  limited  conceptions  of  the  human  mind  with  external 
reality,  or  in  measuring  infinite  reality  by  man's  finite  ca- 
pacity to  grasp  reality — which  capacity  is  necessarily  limited 
to  the  finite  and  can  therefore  not  grasp  the  infinite — these 
thinkers  have  inadvertently  been  led  to  limit  the  omnipotent, 
infinite  and  eternal  God.  The  invalidity  of  their  reasoning,  and 
the  consequent  inconclusiveness  of  their  conclusions  will  there- 
fore be  self-evident.  Hence,  this  objection  as  to  a  limitation 
in  the  Creator,  both  as  to  substance  and  as  to  time,  has  no 
weight  whatever,  and  may  therefore  be  passed  over  without 
further    argument   at   this   time. 

2  Another  objection  to  the  necessary  existence  of  a  great 
First  Cause  as  the  Creator  of  all  things  is  this;  namely,  that 
sufficient  time  joined  with  infinite  space  might  constitute  a 
sufficient  background  for  the  development  of  all  things.  This, 
certainly,  it  would  seem,  should  require  no  answer,  as  it  is  too 
superficial  to  bear  investigation.  It  surely  should  be  suf- 
ficient to  say  that  no  amount  of  time  can  of  itself  produce 
either  previously  non-existing  energy  or  non-existing  matter. 
Time  and  space  are  expressions  of  relations,  in  which  secondary 
causes  operate,  the  one  in  succession  and  the  other  in  exten- 
sion; or  both  in  succession,  the  one  chronologically  and  the 
other  synchronously.  But  they  cannot  be  or  become  even 
secondary  causes.  They  may  barely  be  spoken  of  as  condi- 
tions. 

Because  of  the  many  erroneous  conceptions  of  time,  a  word 
of  further  explanation  is  necessary  in  this  connection.  Time, 
as  we  know  it,  or  time  relative,  is  that  wherein  which  some- 
thing that  has,  or  consists  of,  a  succession  of  changes,  exists, 
and  to  which  it  is  related.  We  know  it  only  by  its  successions 
and  not  by  itself.  It  may  be  called  the  measure  of  the  dura- 
tion of  that  which  has  a  beginning  and  an  ending.  Such  an 
existence  must  necessarily  be  finite,  as  an  infinite  cannot  change 
nor  have  such  beginning  and  end.  The  changing  universe  is 
such  an  existence,   and  this  is  that  wherein  it  exists — or  to 


Evidence  from  Dependence  97 

which  it  is  related  in  its  changes — as  the  measure  of  its  exist- 
ence and  of  its  changes.  Hence,  the  changing  universe  must 
be  finite.  From  this  it  is  readily  seen  also  that  eternity,  or 
time  absolute,  is  that  wherein  that  exists  which  has  no  suc- 
cession of  changes,  no  beginning  nor  end  in  duration,  and, 
of  course,  with  reference  to  that  which  has  no  beginning  and 
no  end  in  extension.  Thus,  eternity  is  that  wherein  an 
eternal  and  infinite  has  its  existence.  Such  an  existence  must, 
therefore,  be  changeless  and  absolute;  and  that  changeless,  in- 
finite, absolute  and  eternal  entity  is  what  the  Christian  knows 
as  God,  the  Creator  of  the  universe. 

3  And,  as  to  so-called  chance,  that  is  only  a  word  behind 
which  to  hide  one's  ignorance.  For,  if  we  could  understand 
what  men  call  chance  we  should  find  back  of  it  all  unmis- 
takable secondary  causes,  as  really  as  behind  any  event  whose 
causes  are  manifest.     But  more  of  this  later  (Chapter  VIII). 

4  And,  as  to  law,  it  should  be  said  that  law  is  only  the 
method  of  operations  in  nature,  or  the  expression  of  these 
methods;  but  a  cause  of  these  operations  it  is  not.  This  dis- 
tinction between  law  and  cause  could  be  shown  by  many  illus- 
trations, both  in  the  operations  of  nature  and  in  the  actions 
of  man.  But,  surely,  it  is  so  self-evident  as  to  need  no  further 
explanation  in  this  connection  (see  Division  V  of  Chapter 
VIII). 

5  It  has  been  contended,  moreover,  that  only  material 
causes  can  act  upon  matter,  and  that  thought  can  neither  affect 
matter  nor  direct  energy.  But  this  is  in  direct  conflict  with 
the  better  knowledge  and  experience  of  even  the  objector. 
He  well  knows  that  thought  in  his  own  life  precedes  and 
determines  action.  Indeed,  as  already  noted,  nothing  but 
will  can  constitute  a  real  cause,  all  so-called  material  causes 
being  the  media  or  secondary  causes  through  which  will  oper- 
ates. Thus,  when  I  strike  a  ball  with  a  hammer  the  ball  is 
moved.  The  real  cause  of  which  the  ball's  motion  is  the 
effect  is  not  the  hammer,  however,  nor  its  blow,  nor  even 
my  hand  or  my  arm  that  wields  the  hammer.  It  is  my  mind 
that  directs  my  arm  and  hand  to  wield  the  hammer  so  as  to 
impart  energy  to  the  ball,  resulting  in  its  motion.  The  arm 
and  hammer  are  simply  the  media  or  secondary  causes  through 
which  my  will  operates  to  move  the  ball.  Therefore,  we  do 
not  ascribe  to  these  secondary  causes  any  morality  in  the  act, 


9^  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

for  that  can  be  ascribed  to  the  directing  will  alone.  If  it  was 
right  for  the  ball  to  be  moved,  it  is  the  will  that  is  commended. 
If  it  was  wrong,  it  is  the  will  that  is  blamed.  But  these 
secondary  causes  can  neither  be  blamed  nor  commended  for 
the  act.  My  will  in  this  case  may,  therefore,  be  regarded  as 
the  first  cause  of  which  the  arm,  hand  and  hammer  are  the 
secondary  causes.  These  are  only  the  instruments  of  my  will^ 
which  is  the  agent  and,  therefore,  totally  diiferent. 

So  in  the  whole  mighty  universe  it  is  Will  that  is  back  of 
all  secondary  causes,  and  these  secondary  causes  are  the  media 
or  instruments  or  methods  of  operation,  or  the  expressions  of 
that  Will.  Thus  the  First  Cause  must  be  a  living,  and  free, 
Personality,  and,  therefore,  altogether  different  from  the  sec- 
ondary causes  which  are  His  instruments  of  operation  for  the 
conduct  of  His  mighty  works. 

With  this  ultimate  or  first,  and  only  real.  Cause  of  the 
origin  and  continuance  of  the  existing  universe — this  absolute, 
free  personal  Will — science  as  such  has  in  reality  nothing  to 
do.  This  is  beyond  its  legitimate  sphere;  for  science  has  to  do 
only  with  the  universe  as  existing,  and  therefore  with  the  laws 
or  modes  of  its  existence,  a  fact  of  which  we  shall  speak  more 
fully  later  (Chapter  X).  This  is  even  acknowledged  by 
eminent  scientists.  On  this  point  the  learned  Dr.  William 
B.  Carpenter,  who  could  surely  speak  with  authority,  in  sev- 
eral connections  expressed  himself  in  no  uncertain  terms.  He 
called  attention  to  the  importance  of  science  confining  itself 
to  its  own  distinctive  sphere,  and  not  presuming  to  enter  the 
domain  of  theology  by  setting  up  nature's  laws  as  self-acting, 
and  as  either  excluding  or  rendering  unnecessary  the  Power 
which  alone  can  give  them  effect.  Some  other  men  of  science 
have  come  to  the  same  definite  conviction.  However,  as  this 
matter  will  be  discussed  in  our  closing  chapter  we  shall  not 
further  discuss  this  point  in  this  connection. 

Therefore,  let  no  one  say,  in  the  light  of  all  the  evidence 
from  nature  for  God's  existence,  that  He  does  not  exist;  for 
He  is  the  only  real  existence,  as  He  is  the  only  real  Cause. 
No  secondary  cause  without  Him;  no  other  existence  except 
from  Him!  To  remove  Him,  the  only  Cause,  would  be  to 
remove  all  cause,  all  energy,  all  existence.  Electrons  and 
atoms  would  cease  to  move  and  combine;  all  vibrations  would 
stop;  light,  heat,  electricity,  gravitation,  would  no  longer  oper- 


Evidence  from  Dependence  99 

ate;  stars  would  instantly  cease  to  revolve  and  shine.  And,  in- 
deed, in  the  very  moment  when  God's  power  would  be  with- 
drawn all  energy  would  cease  and  the  elemental  matter  of  the 
universe  would  vanish  into  nothingness,  as  we  shall  show  it 
will  vanish.  Thus,  as  by  the  power  of  God  all  matter  was  cre- 
ated ex  nihilo,  and  then  endowed  with  the  requisite  energy  for 
a  universal  cosmos,  so  by  the  removal  of  that  power  all  would 
again  be  resolved  or  dissolved  in  nihilum. 

We  have  thus  showed,  from  its  inherent  dependence,  both 
simultaneous  and  synchronous,  that  the  physical  universe  is 
necessarily  finite  and  therefore  temporal,  and  that  it  must  there- 
fore be  a  creation.  But  there  is  further  additional  evidence  in 
nature,  and  to  many  minds,  we  believe,  even  more  convincing 
and  conclusive,  that  it  must  have  been  created  by  an  absolute 
and  eternal  Being.  In  our  next  chapter  we  shall  consider  the 
matter  of  the  extent  of  the  universe  from  another  point  of 
view  and  show  that,  when  considered  as  a  cosmic  whole,  the 
evidence  is  no  less  convincing,  but  rather  more,  if  that  were 
possible,  than  when  considered  from  dependence,  that  it  must 
necessarily  be  a  finite  entity  and  therefore  a  creature. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  PHYSICAL  UNIVERSE  FINITE  AND  TEM- 
PORAL, AND  THEREFORE  A  CREATURE- 
EVIDENCE  FROM  NATURE  AS  A  COSMIC 
WHOLE 

In  our  last  chapter  we  showed  from  its  inherent  depend- 
ence in  every  part,  from  ultimate  particle  to  flaming  star,  that 
the  physical  universe  must  necessarily  be  a  finite  entity,  and 
that  therefore  it  must  have  been  created.  We  shall  now  pro- 
ceed to  consider  the  universe  as  a  cosmic  whole,  to  see  what 
further  testimony  it  affords  as  to  its  extent. 

We  are,  of  course,  here  especially  confronted  with  the  phil- 
osophic objection,  that  this  whole  matter  of  a  universe  as  be- 
ginning or  as  not  beginning  in  space,  as  well  as  in  time,  is  to- 
tally inconceivable.  The  implication  of  this  objection  is,  that 
the  very  transcendental  nature  of  this  idea  precludes  the  possi- 
bility of  arriving  at  any  definite  conclusion  on  this  point.  We 
give  the  substance  of  this  philosophic  objection  in  the  words  of 
Sir  William  Hamilton,  as  follows:  "Existence  we  cannot  but 
think, — cannot  but  attribute  in  ^thought ;  nevertheless  we  can 
actually  conceive  neither  of  these  contradictory  alternatives, — 
the  absolute  commencement,  the  infinite  non-commencement,  of 
being.  As  it  is  with  Existence,  so  is  it  with  Time.  We  cannot 
think  time  beginning;  we  cannot  think  time  not  beginning.  So 
also  with  Space.  We  are  unable  to  conceive  an  existence  out 
of  space;  yet  we  are  equally  unable  to  compass  the  notion  of 
illimitable  or  infinite  space.  Our  capacity  of  thought  is  thus 
peremptorily  proved  incompetent  to  what  we  necessarily  think 
about;  for,  whilst  what  we  think  about  must  be  thought  to 
Exist, — to  exist  in  Time, — to  exist  in  Space, — we  are  unable 
to  realize  the  counter-notion  of  Existence  commencing  or  not 
commencing,  whether  in  Time  or  in  Space"  {Lectures  on 
Metaphysics  and  Logic,  1859,  Vol.  II.,  p.  525). 

100 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  lOI 

It  is  indeed  true,  as  Hamilton  contended,  that  the  human 
mind  is  incapable  of  conceiving  of  space  and  time  either  as 
beginning  or  as  not  beginning,  or  of  the  universe  either  as  lim- 
ited— as  having  a  beginning  and  as  having  an  end — or  as  un- 
limited. But  this  vrould  not  in  the  least  invalidate  our  argu- 
ment. It  is  not  a  question  as  to  whether  the  mind  can  con- 
ceive of  such  finiteness  or  infinity;  but  it  is  a  question  of  fact. 
As  the  universe  does  not  have  its  existence  within  the  mind 
of  man,  its  inconceivability  by  the  mind  either  as  finite  or  as 
infinite  would  in  no  way  affect  the  reality.  The  limitation  of 
conception,  of  course,  exists  in  the  mind,  which  is  by  nature 
limited. 

Moreover,  even  if  the  universe  could  actually  be  conceived 
as  infinite,  but  could  not  be  conceived  as  finite,  this  could  not 
alter  our  conclusions,  as  the  limitation  would  exist  alone  in 
the  ability  of  the  mind  to  conceive.  It  is  therefore  not  a  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  the  universe  can  be  conceived  of  as  finite, 
but  as  to  whether  finiteness  is  testified  to  by  the  universe  itself. 
And  the  contention  of  Kant  that  the  universe  can  be  proved 
both  finite  and  infinite,  both  as  to  space  and  as  to  time,  we 
leave  to  the  reader's  judgment,  in  the  light  of  the  evidence 
presented  in  this  chapter.  However,  it  is  interesting  to  find 
that  some  of  the  greatest  thinkers  have  actually  come  to  the 
conviction  that  the  physical  universe  is  finite. 

I    GREAT  THINKERS  ON  THE  EXTENT  OF  THE 

UNIVERSE 

While  it  is  true  that  the  mere  opinion  of  great  thinkers,  that 
the  universe  is  finite,  does  by  no  means  prove  it  to  be  so,  yet, 
as  their  opinion  is  based  upon  careful  considerations  of  an  ac- 
cumulation of  data,  it  should  have  some  weight.  And,  as  the 
tendency  among  many  men  of  science  (Haeckel,  Arrhenius, 
etc.)  is  more  and  more  to  regard  the  universe  as  infinite  and 
eternal,  the  testimony  of  some  of  the  greatest  masters  among 
them  should  have  no  little  weight  with  those  open  to  con- 
viction. And  this  should  appear  all  the  more  convincing  when 
it  is  seen  that  the  evidence  of  nature  unmistakably  corrob- 
orates their  testimony,  as  we  hope  to  show. 

Among  those  eminent  men  of  science  who  came  to  the 
definite  conviction,  from  the  evidence  from  the  universe  itself, 


102  Creation  Ex  "Nihil o 

that  it  is  finite  in  extent,  was  America's  greatest  astronomer, 
Simon  Newcomb.  In  his  last  contributions  on  this  subject  he 
definitely  announced  his  conviction  that  the  physical  universe 
is  finite.  At  one  place  he  expressed  this  conviction  as  follows: 
"The  universe,  so  far  as  we  can  see  it,  is  a  bounded  whole. 
It  is  surrounded  by  an  immense  girdle  of  stars,  which,  to  our 
vision,  appears  as  the  Milky  Way.  While  we  cannot  set 
exact  limits  to  its  distance  we  may  ytt  confidently  say  that 
it  is  bounded"  {Side-Lights  on  Astronomy,  1906,  p.  74;  also 
reprinted  in  Elliot's  Five  Foot  Library,  Vol.  30). 

And,  in  another  chapter  of  the  same  work,  this  author 
expressed  the  possibility  that  the  boundary  of  the  universe 
may  even  be  definitely  determined  by  astronomers  of  the  fu- 
ture, thus  opening  all  creation  for  human  contemplation.  He 
says:  "It  is  a  great  encouragement  to  the  astronomer  that, 
although  he  cannot  yet  set  any  exact  boundary  to  this  universe 
of  ours,  he  is  gathering  faint  indications  that  It  has  a  bound- 
ary, which  his  successors  not  many  generations  hence  may 
locate  so  that  the  astronomer  shall  include  all  creation  itself 
within  his  mental  grasp"  {Ibid.,  p.  6). 

That  the  universe  is  finite  is  also  regarded  as  the  preferable 
idea  by  Carl  Synder,  as  witness  the  following  words:  "We  are 
undoubtedly  obliged  to  make  option  between  the  two  possi- 
bilities, and  to  the  writer  it  has  always  seemed  that  the  idea 
of  a  finite  universe  was  preferable"  (The  World  Machine, 
1907,  p.  448). 

Among  other  men  of  science  who  arrived  at  the  same  or 
similar  conclusions  as  to  the  bounds  of  the  physical  universe, 
was  the  late  Alfred  Wallace.  One  of  the  conclusions  to  which 
he  was  led  in  his  astronomical  studies  to  answer  the  great 
question  discussed  in  one  of  his  greatest  works,  was,  "That 
the  stellar  universe  forms  one  connected  whole;  and,  though 
of  enormous  extent,  is  yet  finite,  and  its  extent  determinable" 
{Mans  Place  in  the  Universe ,  p.  313). 

Lord  Kelvin,  in  his  maturer  period  of  research  and  investi- 
gation, also  arrived  at  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  the  physi- 
cal universe,  as  far  as  can  be  determined,  must  necessarily  be 
finite. 

To  quote  Kelvin  against  this  position  of  his  maturer  period, 
by  citing  certain  earlier  statements  made  by  him,  will  not  lessen 
the  weight  of  his  authority.     Those  earlier  statements  were 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  103 

not  in  the  nature  of  direct  declarations  upon  this  point;  but 
they  were  made  in  connection  with  his  discussion  of  the  na- 
ture of  light  and  other  subjects,  where  the  question  of  the 
actual  extent  of  the  universe  was  not  directly  involved. 

It  may  also  be  said  that,  in  spite  of  his  contention  that  the 
universe  could  not  be  conceived  of  either  as  finite  or  as  in- 
finite, even  the  philosopher  Sir  William  Hamilton  seems  per- 
sonally to  have  held  it  to  be  finite.  Thus,  in  a  letter  to  Henry 
Calderwood,  dated  26th  Sept.,  1854,  he  said,  "The  created 
universe  is,  and  you  assert  it  to  be,  finite"  {Lectures  on  Meta- 
physics and  Logic  J  p.  533).  And,  again,  he  said,  "Finally,  let 
us  suppose  the  created  universe  (which  you  do  not)  to  be  in- 
finite; in  that  case  we  should  be  reduced  to  the  dilemma  of 
asserting  two  infinites,  which  is  contradictory,  or  of  asserting 
the  supernal  absurdity,  that  God  the  Creator  is  finite,  and  the 
universe  created  by  Him  is  infinite"   {Ibid.,  p.  533). 

Thus  many  of  the  world's  greatest  thinkers  have  been  forced 
to  the  conviction  that  the  physical  universe  is  finite.  And, 
while  there  have  been  many  other  and  perhaps  equally  great 
thinkers  who  have  held  the  opposite  view;  namely,  that  the 
universe  is  infinite,  this  does  not  invalidate  the  testimony  of 
those  whom  we  have  cited,  or  might  cite,  as  holding  or  hav- 
ing held,  that  the  universe  is  finite.  And,  of  course,  the  direct 
evidence  which  we  shall  now  proceed  to  present  in  proof  of 
the  finiteness  of  the  universe,  could  in  no  way  be  affected  by 
mere  numbers  of  witnesses  against  such  finiteness. 

n    THE  PHYSICAL  UNIVERSE,  REGARDED  AS  A 
UNITARY  SYSTEM,  NECESSARILY  FINITE 

To  get  some  idea  as  to  the  possible  extent  of  the  universe, 
or  as  to  whether  it  is  finite  or  infinite,  it  is  necessary  to  con- 
sider its  general  structure.  In  this  connection,  we  shall,  how- 
ever, consider  only  the  general  outlines  of  several  theories  of 
the  universe;  and  afterwards  we  shall  consider  the  evidence 
for  finiteness  from  its  structure  more  in  detail. 

A  very  facinating  theory  as  to  the  structure  of  the  sidereal 
heavens  was  one  that  gradually  arose  during  the  latter  part  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  and  was  more  and  more  fully  de- 
veloped during  the  nineteenth  century,  during  the  greater  part 
of  which  it  held  sway. 


I04  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

According  to  this  theory,  in  its  more  developed  form,  the 
universe  consists  of  an  almost  infinitely  complex  cosmic  unity 
of  revolving  satellites,  planets  and  stars,  of  revolving  systems 
vi^ithin  revolving  systems — wheels  within  wheels — all  moving 
around  some  common  centre.  Thus,  satellite  systems,  like  that 
of  our  own  earth  and  moon  and  like  those  of  other  planets 
known  to  be  accompanied  by  satellites,  have  their  own  revolu- 
tions, amid  their  individual  rotations,  around  their  common 
centre  of  gravity  close  to  or  w^ithin  their  ruling  planet.  A 
number  of  these  satellite  systems  in  turn  revolve  around  their 
central  sun  (star),  or  rather  around  their  common  centre  of 
gravity,  thus  constituting  a  planetary  system,  like  that  of  our 
own  solar  system.  Several  of  such  planet-systems  were  sup- 
posed to  revolve  around  their  common  centre,  constituting  what 
might  be  called  a  sun-  or  star-system.  And  this  is  undoubtedly 
illustrated  in  the  many  physically  double  stars,  triple  stars, 
quadruple  stars  and  even  more  complex  multiple  stars,  some 
of  which  have  been  found  actually  to  revolve  around  their 
common  centre.  Of  notable  double  stars  may  be  mentioned 
6 1  Cygni,  with  the  second  largest  known  parallax,  the  two  com- 
panions of  which  perform  their  revolutions  around  their  centre 
of  gravity  in  a  period  of  about  450  years,  each  supposedly  at- 
tended by  a  retinue  of  revolving  planets  with  revolving  satel- 
lites. A  number  of  these  sun-systems  (binary  stars,  etc.),  ac- 
cording to  this  theory,  supposedly  revolve  about  their  common 
centre,  thus  constituting  a  system  of  a  still  higher  order,  some- 
times spoken  of  as  a  group-system.  Then,  a  number  of  these 
group-systems  were  supposed  to*  form  a  still  larger  star-neigh- 
borhood, all  revolving  around  their  common  centre.  And  star- 
neighborhoods  of  this  latter  order  were  imagined  to  revolve 
around  other  similar  star-neighborhoods,  or  around  their  com- 
mon centre  of  gravity;  and  groups  of  these  latter,  around  still 
other  groups ;  and  so  on,  until  the  whole  mighty  universe  would 
revolve  around  its  ultimate  centre  of  gravity. 

The  higher  systems  that  formed  the  ultimate  universe,  which 
were  of  course  supposed  to  be  either  immense  nebulae  or 
groups  of  nebulae — and  which  were  then  supposedly  so  many 
mighty  universes  of  stars  like  our  galactic  or  Milky  Way  sys- 
tem— would  thus  have  one  major  revolution.  The  next  below 
this  order,  in  addition  to  this  major  revolution,  would  have 
another  revolution.     The  next  below  this  order  would  have 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  105 

another  revolution,  in  addition  to  those  already  mentioned. 
The  next  lower  order  would  have  still  another  revolution. 
And  thus  the  lowest  order,  the  satellites,  would  have  a  com- 
plexity of  revolutions  and  rotations  incalculably  intricate  and 
wonderful. 

By  many  it  was  even  believed  that  the  ultimate  centre  is 
some  great  central  sun.  This  central  sun  Madler  held  to  be 
the  bright  star  Alcyone  of  the  Pleiades,  which  was  estimated  to 
be  many  thousand  times  as  large  as  our  sun.  And  this  belief 
was  shared  by  many  writers.  Moreover,  as  it  became  more  and 
more  definitely  established  that  the  sun  with  its  retinue  of 
planets,  accompanied  by  their  satellites,  is  in  motion  through 
space,  this  added  its  apparent  evidence  to  this  theory  of  a  mighty 
unitary  revolving  universe.  By  some  it  was  held  that  the 
sun  itself  is  describing  a  gigantic  orbit  around  Alcyone;  by 
others,  that  it  is  revolving,  with  its  revolving  planets,  around 
a  more  subordinate  centre,  itself  in  motion  around  a  higher 
centre  or  around  the  ultimate  central  Alcyone.  Lambert  even 
held  that,  instead  of  one  central  sun,  there  should  be  many; 
and  inasmuch  as  these  could  not  be  seen  or  definitely  located, 
he  believed  them  to  be  non-luminous,  or  at  least  not  self- 
luminous.  But,  assuming  a  possible  unitary  revolution  of  the 
starry  universe,  it  would  be  far  more  likely  that  the  ultimate 
centre  would  be  an  immaterial  one,  the  real  centre  of  gravity 
of  the  whole.  Indeed,  this  would  seem  to  be  the  only  centre 
possible,  as  that  centre  would  itself  necessarily  have  to  be 
motionless,  itself  the  balancing  point  of  all  the  motions  and 
forces  of  all  the  bodies  of  the  starry  universe. 

Thus,  the  whole  universe  would  have  to  be  in  motion  around 
its  ultimate  centre  of  gravity.  And,  of  course,  to  the  Chris- 
tian speculator  this  naturally  suggested  that  that  ultimate  com- 
mon centre  might  be  the  abode  or  throne  of  its  ultimate  Cause, 
the  universe's  almighty  Ruler,  by  Whose  power  it  exists  and 
is  thus  energized  with  mighty  revolutions,  rotations,  etc.  Many 
truly  eloquent  passages  on  this  point  could  be  cited  from 
the  writings  of  astronomers  and  popular  scientific  lecturers 
of  the  period — for  the  theory  became  almost  common  prop- 
erty among  even  matter-of-fact  astronomers — as  well  as  of 
Christian  apologists. 

It  is  certainly  a  facinating  theory  to  the  imaginative  mind; 
and  even  as  a  scientific  hypothesis  it  is  indescribably  grand. 


io6  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

What  complexity  of  revolutions  within  revolutions,  and  these 
again  within  higher  revolutions,  up  to  that  all-comprehensive 
revolution  of  the  great  universal  whole!  What  imagination 
could  conceive  it  and  what  mathematics  could  resolve  its  mar- 
velous problems!  If  the  direct  solution  of  even  the  well- 
known  problem  of  three  mutually  attracting  bodies  is  beyond 
the  powder  of  our  present  higher  mathematics,  what  to  us 
transcendental  functions  and  numerical  tables  of  a  mathe- 
matics of  a  transcendently  higher  order,  would  be  required 
to  solve  the  inconceivably  more  complicated  and  profounder 
problems  of  such  a  well-nigh  infinite  universe  of  mutually 
attracting  stars  with  their  multitudinous  revolutions  within 
revolutions!  Such  might  be  conceived  of  as  a  delightful  occu- 
pation and  exercise  for  glorified  men  and  seraphic  intelli- 
gences,— 

To  wander  up  and  down  the  heavens  of  space 
With  flight  of  thought  and  with  an  angel's  sight 

To  read  creation's  story,  and  to  trace 

God's  plans  for  aeons  through  those  realms  of  light! 

It  is  thus  readily  seen  why  this  theory  so  strongly  appealed 
to  the  scientific  imagination  of  a  former  generation.  And, 
even  though  somewhat  materialistic  in  its  nature  and  tendency, 
what  could  give  the  Christian  apologist  a  sublimer  concep- 
tion of  the  greatness  and  power  of  his  God,  than  such  a 
theory  of  the  structure  and  God-controlled  operation  of  His 
mighty  handiwork! 

Great  clockwork  of  the  stars,  in  one  grand  whole 
Revolve  with  myriad  motions,  then,  and  nod 

Each  unto  each,  and  all  to   His  control. 
Sublimely  moving  round  the  throne  of  God, 

And  beating  seconds,  seasons,  cycles,  e'er, 

Till  time  is  o'er,  when  He  will  touch  your  spring 

Again,  and  from  the  heights  of  heaven  declare: 
"Eternity!     Again  let  angels  sing!" 

Ad  Astra  (L.  F.  G.) 

It  might  be  said  that,  though  this  theory  has  some  things 
apparently  in  conflict  with  some  established   facts  of  science, 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  107 

yet  ft  would  be  rather  difficult  even  now  altogether  to  refute 
it.  We  are  surely  unable,  from  the  few  established  data  as 
to  the  sun's  path,  definitely  to  state  that  it  is  moving  in  a 
straight  line.  Moreover,  the  period  of  astronomical  observa- 
tion would  certainly  as  yet  be  far  too  short  to  have  gathered 
sufficient  data  to  determine  whether  the  observed  path  is  a 
straight  line  or  an  infinitesimal  arc  of  a  mighty  curved  orbit 
around  some  far  off  centre.  Of  late  years,  much  attention  has 
been  devoted  to  the  proper  motions  of  the  stars  by  the  Dutch 
astronomer  J.  C.  Kapteyn  and  others.  And,  upon  the 
basis  of  their  observations,  it  has  been  found  that  there  are 
apparently  two  drifts  of  stars,  as  far  as  their  motions  have 
been  quite  definitely  determined,  and  that  these  drifts  or  con- 
cert motions  appear  to  be  in  almost  opposite  directions, 
or  nearly  toward  opposite  points  on  the  celestial  sphere.  No 
apparent  cause  has  yet  been  discovered;  but  these  motions  may 
be  just  what  we  should  expect  from  the  known  or  local  stellar 
system  if  it  were  a  connected  whole.  And  may  these  motions 
not  also  suggest  a  mighty  revolution  of  stars  somewhat  even 
like  that  referred  to,  parts  of  the  opposite  orbital  paths  of  a 
lesser  or  greater  stellar  revolution  of  a  higher  order  being 
perhaps  here  marked  by  these  two  opposite  drifts?  At  any 
rate,  these  drifts  open  up  a  great  problem  for  solution. 

There  is,  however,  a  bare  possibility  that,  as  the  sun's  way 
will  more  and  more  definitely  be  plotted  out  or  located  through 
space  and  its  velocity  determined  with  greater  accuracy,  this 
might  itself  in  some  way  afford  a  sort  of  measure,  or  a  greater 
astronomer's  foot-rule,  with  which  to  measure  parallaxes  and 
determine  star-distances  and  star-motions.  In  such  a  way  the 
problem  as  to  whether  star-motions  describe  curved  orbits, 
and  as  to  whether  there  are  gigantic  stellar  or  universe  revolu- 
tions that  we  do  not  yet  know  of,  may  be  solved.  But  all 
that  has  thus  far  been  established  is  that  our  solar  system  is 
moving  at  the  rate  of  about  ten  to  fifteen  miles  a  second  in 
the  direction  of  some  point  in  the  constellation  Lyra,  per- 
haps its  star  delta,  as  some  calculations  indicate,  or  perhaps,  ac- 
cording to  one  calculation  given  by  Newcomb  {The  Stars, 
p.  91),  its  brilliant  star  Vega.  And  as  to  the  real  paths  of 
the  other  stars  our  data  are,  of  course,  equally  inadequate  to 
make  any  dogmatic  statement. 

However,    if   our   stellar   universe   be   regarded    as   having 


io8  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

somewhat  definite  bounds,  it  would  seem  that  it  should  almost 
necessarily  also  have  a  somewhat  definite  centre  of  gravity 
somewhere.  And  it  would  also  seem  necessary  for  its  stellar 
motions,  by  the  very  nature  of  the  action  of  gravitation  within 
such  a  stellar  organism,  to  describe  curves  rather  than  straight 
lines.  And,  whether  this  is  true  or  not,  it  should  not  take 
many  more  generations  of  astronomical  observation  to  de- 
termine. For,  if  it  be  regarded  as  fairly  well  established  that 
the  present  apex  of  the  sun's  way  is,  let  us  say,  the  star  Vega, 
then,  if  in  the  future  it  should  be  found  that  successive  other 
points  mark  that  apex,  its  curved  path,  even  apart  from  other 
data,  would  apparently  be  established.  But,  if  the  centre  of 
such  orbit,  or  one  of  its  foci,  were  marked  by  an  enormous 
star,  it  would  be  only  a  matter  of  chance;  for  surely  no  one 
star  could  be  conceived  of  as  in  any  sense  such  a  controlling 
gravitational  centre  for  the  whole  sidereal  universe  as  is  the 
sun  for  its  retinue  of  planets.  Hence,  the  definite  conviction 
that,  even  if  the  whole  stellar  system  revolves  about  some  ulti- 
mate centre,  it  must  almost  necessarily  be  an  immaterial  one, 
and,  of  course,  necessarily  the  real  centre  of  gravity. 

Even  Charles  Young  was  not  altogether  averse  to  the  be- 
lief that  there  might  be  a  universe-revolution  around  some  cen- 
tre, similar  to  that  of  the  planets  around  our  sun,  as  is  evident 
from  the  following  words:  "A  favorite  idea  has  been  that  the 
mass  of  stars  which  constitutes  our  system  has  a  slow  rotation 
like  that  of  a  body  on  its  axis,  the  plane  of  this  general 
revolution  coinciding  with  the  plane  of  the  galaxy.  Such 
a  general  motion  is  not  in  any  way  inconsistent  with  the  in- 
dependent motions  of  the  individual  stars,  and  there  is  per- 
haps a  slight  inherent  probability  in  favor  of  such  a  move- 
ment; but  thus  far  we  have  no  evidence  that  it  really  exists — 
indeed,  there  hardly  could  be  any  such  evidence  at  present, 
because  exact  Astronomy  is  not  yet  old  enough  to  have  gath- 
ered the  necessary  data"    {General  Astronomy,  pp.  512-513). 

It  is  almost  needless  to  say  that,  upon  the  basis  of  this 
theory  of  the  structure  of  the  starry  universe,  it  must  neces- 
sarily be  finite  in  extent.  And  this  was  also  the  implied,  and 
in  some  cases  the  expressed,  conception  of  those  who  held  to 
this  view.  The  very  idea  of  such  a  universal  revolution,  or 
perhaps  even  better  rotation,  of  the  universe,  implies  finiteness 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  109 

as  a  unified  whole.  It  even  implies  successive  beginning  and 
returning  points  in  rotation.  Moreover,  no  multiplication 
of  necessarily  finite  revolutions  of  equally  finite  systems,  vi^ith- 
in  such  revolution,  could  even  constitute  an  infinity  of 
such  revolutions  or  systems;  and,  therefore,  they  could  in 
their  aggregate  not  make  an  infinite  universe.  Then,  too,  the 
very  notion  of  such  a  universal  revolution  or  rotation  would 
necessarily  imply  something  within  which  it  would  have  to 
be  taking  place,  and  therefore  a  something  more  extended  and 
therefore  greater.  And,  as  it  would  be  self-contradictory  to 
speak  of  an  infinitely-extended  universe  as  revolving  within  a 
something  of  greater  extension,  this  supposedly  infinite  uni- 
verse must  necessarily  be  finite.  Indeed,  as  elsewhere  noted, 
an  infinite  could  in  no  sense  be  conceived  of  as  in  motion,  as 
such  motion,  like  any  motion  whatsoever,  would  imply  a  fixed 
or  relatively  fixed  containing  something  beyond  it.  Hence,  in 
accordance  with  this  theory  of  the  structure  of  the  universe — 
as  it  regards  it  as  a  moving  entity — it  must  be  finite. 

And  this  would  also  be  true  of  any  other  theory  of  the 
universe  as  a  unified  structure,  that  acknowledges  the  presence 
of  revolutions  within  it,  whether  in  whole  or  in  separated 
parts.  And  thus,  the  very  presence  of  motion — as  an  evi- 
dence of  finiteness — would  also  contradict  the  conception  of 
its  infinity  upon  any  other  hitherto  proposed  theory.  We 
might  also  say,  in  passing,  that  the  very  conception  of  form 
as  attached  to  the  universe,  according  to  this  theory,  would 
also  imply  its  finiteness;  for,  whatever  has  form  has  bounds 
or  limits,  and  can  therefore  not  be  an  infinite  entity.  And 
this,  also,  would  apply  to  any  other  theory  whatsoever  that 
w^ould  body  forth  the  universe  as  an  existence  with  any 
form  whatever — or  as  a  unified  entity. 

But  the  theory  of  the  structure  of  the  universe  as  a  revolv- 
ing unitary  whole  is  no  longer  seriously  maintained  by  most 
men  of  science.  According  to  the  present  more  generally 
accepted  theory  of  the  structure  of  the  stellar  universe,  it  is 
still  regarded  as  a  system,  or  in  a  sense  a  unified  organism, 
both  as  to  its  constituent  materials  and  as  to  some  general 
structure.  But,  according  to  it,  the  stars  within  it  are  re- 
lated to  one  another  somewhat  like  bees  in  a  swarm.  In 
other  words,   they  would   form  what  may   be  called   a  star- 


no  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

republic,  as  contrasted  with  a  monarchy  like  that  of  our  solar 
system  with  its  sun  as  practically  absolute  ruler.  While 
their  motions  must  be  somewhat  affected  by  their  star-neigh- 
bors, the  nearest  of  which  would  be  from  three  to  eight 
light  years  away  from  them,  they  might  nevertheless  be  spoken 
of  as  practically  independent,  as  compared  with  those  of  our 
planets. 

Upon  this  theory,  according  to  which  the  stars  still  con- 
stitute a  system  and  yet  are  relatively  independent,  Charles 
Young  expressed  himself  thus:  "That  the  stars  are  organized 
into  a  system  or  systems  of  some  sort  can  hardly  be  doubted, 
for  this  seems  to  be  a  necessary  consequence  of  their  mutual 
attraction.  But  that  the  system  is  one  at  all  after  the  pat- 
tern of  the  solar  system,  in  which  the  different  members  move 
in  closed  orbits, — orbits  that  are  permanent  except  for  the 
slow  changes  produced  by  perturbation, — this  is  almost  cer- 
tainly impossible"  {General  Astronomy,  p.  512).  Of  course, 
this  must  not  be  taken  as  contradicting  another  statement  by 
the  same  astronomer,  quoted  above,  on  the  bare  possibility  of 
a  revolution  of  the  stellar  universe  as  a  unitary  whole.  This 
latter  statement  is  made  in  the  light  of  established  data.  But, 
whether  the  future  will  establish  data  to  overbalance  present 
indications,  can  only  be  guessed  at  at  this  stage  of  astronomi- 
cal research. 

But  the  points  we  made  above  with  reference  to  the 
theory  of  the  universe  regarded  as  a  revolving  unitary  whole, 
as  there  also  indicated,  are  applicable  also  to  the  universe  as 
here  considered.  It  must,  upon  its  very  face,  necessarily  be 
considered  finite.  And,  from  the  following  consideration  of 
the  evidence  for  its  finiteness  from  several  fairly  well-known 
details — largely  upon  the  basis  of  this  latter  view  of  its  struc- 
ture— its  finiteness  will  become  practically  a  mathematical 
certainty. 

Ill  EVIDENCE  OF  FINITENESS  IN  THE  GEN- 
ERAL DISTRIBUTION  AND  APPARENT  NUM- 
BER OF  THE  STARS 

Among  the  direct  evidences  that  the  number  of  stars  in  the 
universe  is  limited,  is  their  well  known  arrangement  or  dis- 
tribution.    Taking  the   Milky  Way  as  a  belt  with  an  axis 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  lii 

perpendicular  to  it,  the  poles  of  this  axis  are  known  as  the 
galactic  poles.  Now,  it  is  a  well  known  fact — partly  even 
to  the  casual  observer,  but  much  more  so  to  the  astronomer 
with  his  telescope — that  the  numbers  of  stars  for  equal  sky 
areas  increase  as  we  proceed  from  these  galactic  poles  toward 
the  star-belt  of  the  Milky  Way,  their  number  being  of  course 
least  around  the  galactic  poles.  This  fact  was  early  observed 
by_  astronomers,  and  later  formed  the  basis  for  the  so-called 
grindstone  theory  of  the  universe,  given  to  the  world  by 
Thomas  Wright  of  Durham,  in  his  work,  entitled.  An  Orig- 
inal Theory  or  New  Hypothesis  of  the  Universe,  published  in 
1750.  According  to  this  now  rather  generally  accepted  the- 
ory, the  universe  of  stars,  presumably  nearly  equally  distrib- 
uted, is  in  the  form  of  a  grindstone  or  millstone,  with  a 
diameter  about  eight  to  twelve  times  its  thickness,  our  solar 
system  being  situated  near  the  centre.  This  general  form  of 
the  galactic  system  has  also  been  described  as  lens-shaped,  or 
bun-shaped.  While  several  slightly  modified  forms  of  this 
theory  have  been  suggested,  this  statement  will  be  sufficient  for 
our  present  purpose. 

The  stars,  as  we  pass  from  the  galactic  poles  toward  the 
Milky  Way,  would  thus  naturally  appear  more  and  more 
numerous,  because,  from  the  greater  distances  through  which 
we  look,  more  and  more  stars  would  be  projected  against  the 
surface  of  an  all-containing  imaginary  sphere.  This  fact  of 
the  apparent  distribution  of  the  stars  is  itself  already  sugges- 
tive of  some  definite  system  in  the  telescopically  visible  starry 
universe,  and,  of  course,  of  its  probable  finiteness.  As  to- 
ward the  poles  there  are  less  stars,  and  especially  less  telescopic 
stars,  the  apparent  evidence  is  that  in  that  direction  its  out- 
posts are  nearer  to  us,  and  that  they  are  relatively  only  farther 
and   farther   away  as  we   approach   the  galactic   belt. 

It  should,  of  course,  be  said  that,  according  to  Kapteyn's 
researches,  the  evidence  is,  that,  while  the  stars  in  the  Milky 
Way  system  are  apparently  nearly  evenly  distributed — apart 
from  the  apparent  star-girdle  itself — there  nevertheless  is  a 
really  denser  belt  or  ring  of  stars,  though  somewhat  irregular 
in  form,  etc.,  in  the  plane  of  the  system.  This  star-belt  is 
probably  somewhere  beyond  what  might  be  spoken  of,  in  a 
general  way,  as  the  galactic  locus  of  the  tenth  to  the  fifteenth 
magnitudes  of  stars,  but  not  likely  extending  to  the  bounds 


112  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

of  the  whole  system.  E.  C.  Pickering  has  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  density  of  stars  in  the  Milky  Way  belt  is 
about  two  times  as  great  as  that  in  the  other  regions  of  the 
galactic  system.  This  would  give  the  galactic  system  some- 
what of  a  Saturnian,  or  wreath-like,  appearance,  if  viewed 
from  without  its  plane  and  beyond  its  bounds.  But,  apart 
from  that  galactic  wreath  or  belt  of  stars  and  the  lesser  local 
groups,  the  stars  are  undoubtedly  quite  evenly  scattered  up 
and  down  the  depths  of  space.  But,  even  apart  from  that 
galactic  belt,  there  is  an  apparent  increase  of  stars  from 
galactic  poles  to  galactic  equator,  thus  indicating  that  the 
diameter  of  the  galaxy  is  greater  than  its  thickness.  And, 
of  course,  the  very  appearance  of  the  universe  from  this  stand- 
point of  the  apparent  distribution  of  its  stars,  is  naturally  that 
of  a  limited  unitary  whole. 

Now,  let  us  consider  the  stars  as  distributed  into  magni- 
tudes according  to  the  relative  amounts  of  light  they  give. 
Upon  this  basis  it  is  found  that  the  numbers  for  about  ten  or 
eleven  successive  magnitudes  vary  according  to  a  geometrical 
ratio  of  nearly  four.  Thus  the  number  of  stars  of  any 
magnitude  up  to  about  the  tenth  or  eleventh  is  from  three 
to  four  times  that  of  the  magnitude  next  preceding  it.  But 
after  about  the  tenth  or  eleventh  magnitude  this  ratio  gradually 
decreases;  in  fact,  it  apparently  more  and  more  tends  to  ap- 
proach zero.  We  are  not  now,  however,  including  the  wreath 
of  Milky  Way  stars.  Nor  are  we  here  considering  the  fact 
that  the  maximum  density  is  farther  away  in  the  plane  of  the 
galactic  system  than  toward  its  poles. 

In  line  with  this  are  also  the  conclusions  of  Chapman  and 
Melotte,  that  the  total  number  of  stars  for  fainter  magnitudes 
is  smaller  than  had  formerly  been  supposed,  thus  considerably 
reducing  the  number  of  stars  in  the  universe  below  the  num- 
ber assumed  by  some  exaggerated  former  estimates. 

All  these  facts  that  the  density  of  star-distribution  is  less 
and  less  as  we  pass  outward,  etc.,  constitute  a  remarkable 
bit  of  evidence  for  the  finiteness  of  the  sidereal  universe.  And 
these  facts  have  also  been  accepted  as  such  by  some  noted 
astronomers.  Thus  A.  S.  Eddington,  Professor  of  Astron- 
omy, University  of  Cambridge,  England,  writes  as  follows: 
"The  decrease  of  density  at  great  distances  from  the  sun  rep- 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  113 

resents  the  fact  that  the  stellar  system  is  limited  in  extent, 
and  as  it  is  notorious  that  the  limits  are  very  much  nearer  to- 
wards the  galactic  poles  than  in  the  galatic  plane,  a  representa- 
tion which  did  not  include  a  variation  with  galactic  latitude 
would  be  very  imperfect"  {Stellar  Movements  and  the  Struc- 
ture of  the  Universe  J  1914,  p.  202). 

And,  of  course,  the  total  amount  of  light  received  from  all 
these  stars  of  the  successive  magnitudes  should  also  afford  us 
some  evidence  as  to  their  number.  Thus,  according  to  New- 
comb,  the  amount  of  light  received  from  all  the  stars  of  one 
magnitude  is  about  twice  that  received  from  those  of  the  sec- 
ond magnitude  above  it.  That  is,  the  light  from  the  stars 
of  the  fifth  magnitude  is  about  twice  that  from  those  of  the 
third  magnitude.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that,  while  the  light 
of  the  stars  of  successive  magnitudes  varies  as  about  two  and 
one-half  to  one,  the  number  of  stars  varies  as  about  one  to 
three  and  one-half.  Or  the  rate  of  increase  in  light  received 
from  successive  magnitudes  is  about  1.4  to  1.5.  But  after  the 
tenth  or  eleventh  magnitude  this  light  ratio  also  decreases,  as 
we  pass  outward  from  magnitude  to  magnitude. 

This  fact  is  also  referred  to  by  Young  in  his  General  Astron- 
omy, page  468,  where  he,  however,  apparently  makes  New- 
comb  consider  the  amounts  of  light  received  from  successive 
magnitudes  to  be  equal.  And,  in  another  connection,  Young 
makes  the  following  statement:  ''Beyond  the  tenth  magnitude 
the  number  of  small  stars  does  not  increase  proportionately  fast, 
so  that  if  we  could  carry  on  the  account  of  stars  to  the  twen- 
tieth magnitude,  it  is  practically  certain  that  we  should  not 
find  the  total  light  of  the  aggregate  stars  of  each  succeeding 
magnitude  increasing  at  any  such  rate  as  from  the  seventh  to 
the  tenth"  {General  Astronomy,  p.  475)* 

In  fact,  the  maximum  of  increase  in  the  sum  total  of  light 
received  from  the  different  magnitudes  of  stars  is  reached  with 
about  the  tenth  and  eleventh  magnitudes.  And  from  those 
magnitudes  the  ratio  of  light  per  magnitude  decreases.  This, 
of  course,  means  that  the  stars  themselves  increase  in  number 
or  distribution  up  to  about  the  tenth  or  eleventh  magnitude, 
according  to  a  certain  ratio,  and  that  from  that  point  this  ratio 
gradually  decreases.  And  the  implied  conclusion  seems  to  be 
that  their  number  may  approach  the  zero  point  at  some  disj- 
tance  beyond  the  twenty-first  or  the  twenty-second  magnitude. 


114  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

Thus,  our  starry  system  may  at  least  not  extend  far  beyond 
the  bounds  of  what  might  be  considered  the  apparent  equiva- 
lent of  the  twenty-first  or  the  twenty-second  magnitude. 

We  realize,  to  be  sure,  that  in  this  consideration  we  are 
treating  star  magnitudes  as  proportionate  to,  or  almost  syn- 
onymous with,  star  distances.  While  this  does  by  no  means 
altogether  correspond  to  actual  facts,  it  is  close  enough  as  an 
approximation,  and  therefore  as  a  basis  for  reasoning.  Nor 
would  our  general  conclusions  from  these  assum.ed  data  be  ma- 
terially altered  by  the  actual  data  of  fact.  And,  of  course,  we 
are  not  now  taking  into  consideration  the  undoubtedly  denser 
ring  or  wreath  of  stars  in  the  galactic  zone,  that  forms  the  real 
nucleus  of  the  otherwise  only  apparently  denser  Milky  Way. 
But  even  this  would  not  invalidate  our  arguments. 

Moreover,  the  increase  in  definition  and  power  of  the  tele- 
scope, as  improved  from  decade  to  decade — as  well  as  the  im- 
proved application  of  photography  to  the  charting  of  stars — 
does  not  result  in  a  proportionate  increase  in  the  number  of 
new  stars  discovered.  Thus,  if  the  distribution  of  stars  con- 
tinued indefinitely  with  approximately  the  same  density,  we 
should  naturally  expect  that,  with  a  doubling  of  telescopic 
magnification  and  proportionate  increase  in  its  light  and  defini- 
tion— in  other  words,  with  twice  its  former  reach  of  distance — 
the  number  of  stars  visible  should  be  increased  eight-fold.  The 
new  sphere  of  vision  with  a  radius  twice  as  long  as  the  old, 
should  thus  naturally  include  eight  times  the  number  of  stars 
in  the  old,  as  similar  volumes  vary  as  the  cubes  of  their  like 
dimensions.  This  is,  however,  found  to  be  far  from  the  fact, 
as  we  pass  beyond  the  approximate  magnitudes  already  men- 
tioned. Indeed,  equal  successive  improvements  in  our  instru- 
ments result  in  ever  less  and  less  added  new  stars. 

Assuming  now  the  highest  power  and  definition  of  the  tele- 
scope yet  attained  to  be  equivalent  to  an  increase,  in  our  radius 
of  vision,  of  fifteen  hundred  times,  then,  all  other  things  being 
equal,  we  might  expect  the  number  of  stars  visible  to  be 
3)375>ooo,ooo  times  those  visible  to  the  unaided  eye.  And, 
taking  the  approximate  number  visible  to  the  naked  eye  to  be 
about  6,000,  this  would  make  the  number  of  telescopic  stars — 
upon  the  basis  of  an  indefinite  and  even  distribution  of  stars, 
and  of  course  under  ideal  conditions — to  be  20,250,000,000,- 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  1 15 

000.  But,  ft  is  needless  to  say  that  this  is  probably  upwards 
of  a  hundred  thousand  times  as  many  as  could  actually  be 
visible  through  the  most  powerful  telescope  yet  constructed, 
and  even  if  assisted  with  photographic  apparatus. 

It  may,  of  course,  be  objected,  that  this  theoretical  magnifica- 
tion does  not  express  the  actual  possibility  of  the  telescope,  be- 
cause of  its  too  great  magnification  in  comparison  with  the 
amount  of  light  admitted  by  the  field  lens.  We  indeed  used 
a  magnifying  power  of  thirty-seven  and  one-half  times  the  diam- 
eter of  a  forty-inch  object  glass,  whereas  the  normal  magnify- 
ing power  used  should  be  only  about  twenty  times  that  of  the 
diameter  of  the  object  glass  in  inches.  And  yet,  under  ideal 
atmospheric  conditions,  a  power  of  one  hundred  times  the 
aperture  in  inches  could  be  used,  though  this  would  by  no 
means  be  the  power  used  in  trying  to  resolve  stars.  We  shall 
therefore  assume  a  basis  of  observation  that  cannot  be  ob- 
jected to. 

Let  us  assume  the  pupil  of  the  human  eye  to  be  one-fourth 
of  an  inch  in  diameter,  which  is  probably  exaggerated,  even 
when  the  observer  looks  at  the  stars.  Then,  a  forty-inch  ob- 
ject glass  of  the  telescope  would  be  a  hundred  and  sixty  times 
as  large  in  diameter,  and  should,  therefore,  under  ideal  con- 
ditions, admit  the  square  of  one  hundred  and  sixty,  or  twenty- 
five  thousand  six  hundred,  times  as  much  light  as  the  human 
eye.  Then,  even  if  the  magnifying  power  of  the  eye-piece  were 
only  as  great  as  the  diameter  of  the  object  glass  is  greater  than 
that  of  the  eye  (an  abnormally  low  magnification),  the  num- 
ber of  telescopic  stars — if  evenly  distributed  to  the  farthest 
reaches  of  space — should  be  the  cube  of  one  hundred  and  sixty 
times  the  number  visible  to  the  naked  eye,  or  160^  times  6,000, 
or  24,576,000,000.  And  even  this  would  be  several  hundred 
times  as  many  as  the  telescope  would  reveal  under  abnormally 
favorable  circumstances.  This  should  therefore  be  very  convinc- 
ing proof  that  the  density  of  star-distribution  must  very  rapidly 
decrease  as  we  pass  outward  from  a  certain  spherical  zone — 
probably  that  which  we  have  indicated  above — and  that  this 
decrease  in  ratio  of  number  and  density  rapidly  even  ap- 
proaches zero.  Hence,  the  probability  almost  certainly  is,  that 
our  instruments  have  already  nearly  exhausted  the  depths  of 
space,  and  resolved  the  number  of  its  existing  stars. 

Thus  the  evidence  from  this  consideration  is  almost  unan- 


Ii6  Creation  Ex  "Nihil o 

swerable,  that  the  number  of  stars  of  our  star-system  is  lim- 
ited. Indeed,  all  discoveries  with  the  telescope,  assisted  by 
photography,  seem  to  indicate  that  their  number  is  probably 
not  greatly  over  several  hundred  millions.  Other  evidence, 
such  as  that  from  proper  motions,  it  might  be  said,  however, 
point  to  a  greater  number — probably  to  as  many  as  at  least 
several  hundred  millions  more.  But  even  if  their  number  could 
be  shown  to  be  1,000,000,000,  as  is  estimated  by  some  author- 
ities, that  would  not  be  infinite.  And  very  many  more  than 
1,000,000,000  it  is  almost  certain  do  not  exist  in  our  system, 
unless  perchance  many  millions  of  them  are  very  minute  as 
compared  with  our  sun. 

It  must,  of  course,  be  conceded  that  there  are  probably  many 
dark  stars — not  to  speak  of  possible  planets  and  satellites,  re- 
volving around  other  stars  or  suns — that  cannot  be  detected  by 
our  instruments.  But  that  these  cannot  be  so  numerous  nor 
so  large  as  in-  any  great  degree  to  affect  our  general  conclusions 
as  to  the  extent  of  the  universe,  is  altogether  probable  even 
from  general  principles;  while  it  is  practically  certain  from 
the  known  motions  of  the  nearest  stars — with  but  few  well 
known  exceptions — as  well  as  also  from  other  applications  of 
the  law  of  gravitation.  Although  Sir  Robert  Ball  estimates 
the  combined  mass  of  these  dark  bodies  as  possibly  very  great, 
there  is  no  real  evidence  to  warrant  such  a  conclusion.  And 
hence  other  astronomers  are  not  inclined  to  follow  him  in  this 
line  of  speculation.  Indeed,  if  their  number  and  mass  vv^ere 
considerable,  there  would  be  a  ijieasurable  obstruction  of  light 
from  even  the  visible  stars,  especially  from  the  great  swarm 
of  those  whose  light  travels  to  us  from  the  very  distant  parts 
of  the  Milky  Way. 

Moreover,  if  there  were  any  large  number  of  dark  bodies  of 
stellar  magnitude  distributed  through  stellar  space,  observable 
occultations  would  necessarily  have  to  be  very  frequent.  But 
as  this  is  not  the  case,  their  number  must,  of  course,  be  com- 
paratively small.  The  variable  stars  of  the  various  types,  of 
some  of  which  the  variation  is  due  to  occultation,  would  surely 
not  constitute  a  very  large  number.  And,  as  to  some  hypo- 
thetical clouds  of  light-absorbing  particles  floating  in  space, 
especially  in  line  with  the  denser  part  of  the  Milky  Way,  the 
evidence  from  the  light  actually  received  should  be  sufficient 
proof  that,  if  such  dark  matter  exists,  it  interferes  but  very 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  117 

little  with  the  light  or  visibility  of  the  stars.  Therefore,  as- 
tronomers quite  generally  consider  this  point  as  of  but  very 
little  consequence. 

So  far  we  have  considered  star-distribution  in  a  general  way 
as  an  evidence  that  their  number  is  finite,  and  that  therefore 
the  universe  is  limited  in  extent.  W^  shall  now  proceed  to 
consider  the  extent  of  the  universe  from  the  probable  density  in 
distribution  of  the  stars. 

According  to  Eddington's  calculation,  based  upon  the  latest 
astronomical  data  available,  the  star-density  is  such  that  there 
are  probably  between  30  and  40  stars  within  a  radius  of  five 
parsecs  from  our  solar  system.  This  unit  of  measure,  sug- 
gested by  Hunter,  corresponds  to  a  parallax  of  one  second  of 
arc,  and  is  equivalent  to  206,000  times  our  distance  from  the 
sun  (astronomical  units),  and  is  therefore  about  19  X  10^^ 
miles.  And  as  for  the  higher  magnitudes  the  density  has  been 
determined  apparently  to  be  considerably  less,  as  we  have  al- 
ready noted,  let  us  assume  the  average  density  throughout  to 
be  27  stars  for  a  sphere  with  a  radius  of  five  parsecs.  Let  us 
now  assume  the  total  number  of  stars  in  the  universe  thus  far 
explored  to  be  1,000,000,000,  as  all  the  evidence  at  hand  is 
against  assuming  their  number  to  be  much  greater.  Following 
a  simple  method  suggested  by  Newcomb,  it  is  readily  seen 
that,  as  like  dimensions  of  similar  volumes  are  to  each  other 
as  the  cube  roots  of  their  contents,  the  radius  of  a  sphere  hav- 
ing 1,000,000,000  stars  would  be  to  the  radius  of  a  sphere 
having  27  stars  as  1,000  is  to  3.  Or,  since  a  sphere  containing 
27  stars  would  have  a  radius  of  5  parsecs,  a  sphere  containing 
1,000,000,000  stars  would  have  a  radius  of  333    1/3    (^^^\ 

times  5  parsecs,  or  16662/3  parsecs,  or  approximately  5,400 
light  years.  Hence,  even  if  their  average  density  of  distribu- 
tion (in  number  of  stars)  were  such  that  there  would  be  27 
stars  to  a  sphere  with  a  radius  of  5  parsecs,  assuming  the  uni- 
verse to  be  spherical  in  form  with  our  solar  system  near  the 
centre,  its  bounds  in  every  direction  would  be  only  about  5,400 
light  years  away  from  us. 

Moreover,  even  if  the  starry  universe  had  eight  times  1,000,- 
000,000  stars — a  number  of  times  as  many  as  are  known  to 
us  with  the  aid  of  the  best  modern  instruments — upon  the  same 


Ii8  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

basis  of  distribution,  it  would  have  a  radius  of  only  twice  that 
of  a  universe  of  1,000,000,000  stars,  or  about  10,800  light 
years.  And  we  need  not  comment  that  such  would  be  a  verj'^ 
finite  radius — a  very  finite  universe. 

All  these  figures  are,  of  course,  based  upon  the  supposition 
of  an  equal  distribution  or  density  of  stars.  However,  as  we 
pass  outward  toward  the  confines  of  the  universe,  the  density 
of  stars  grows  less  and  less,  as  already  noted.  This  would, 
therefore,  somewhat  lengthen  the  radius  of  our  universe-sphere. 
Nevertheless,  as  the  number  of  stars  known  to  us  with  the 
aid  of  the  best  instruments,  for  reasons  already  given,  may 
nearly  exhaust  the  actual  number  of  stars  in  our  galactic 
sidereal  system,  it  is  not  probable  that  its  radius  can  much  ex- 
ceed 5,000  light  5/ears,  if  indeed  it  is  that  great. 

Nor  would  the  basis  of  the  millstone  shape  of  the  sidereal 
heavens  very  materially  alter  the  above  conclusions.  It  would 
only  extend  the  bounds  more  in  one  direction,  etc.  Moreover, 
it  may  be  said  that,  whatever  be  the  number  of  the  stars  and 
the  shape  of  our  stellar  system,  it  would  nevertheless  have  to 
be  finite  in  extent.  Indeed,  why  say  shape,  for  shape  itself  im- 
plies boundary,  and  therefore  finitenessf  And  the  same  is  true 
even  of  number  and  distance. 

IV    EVIDENCE  OF  FINITENESS  IN  THE  STELLAR 

MOTIONS 

Another  line  of  evidence  against  an  infinite  universe  of  stars 
is  found  in  the  motions  of  the  stars.  It  has  long  been  a  well 
established  fact  that  the  sun  with  its  retinue  of  planets  is  in 
motion,  as  evidenced  by  the  apparent  separation  of  the  stars 
in  one  part  of  the  heavens,  their  apparent  coming  together  in 
the  opposite  part,  and  the  apparent  drift  of  the  stars  along  the 
zone  between  these  parts.  This  apparent  displacement  of  the 
stars,  due  to  the  sun's  motion  through  space,  is  called  their 
parallactic  motion.  This  point  is  well  illustrated  by  the  drift- 
ing of  a  boat  on  a  lake  entirely  surrounded  by  woods,  from 
which  the  persons  drifting  can  easily  determine  their  general 
course,  as  they  observe  the  apparently  relatively  moving  trees 
on  all  sides.  Moreover,  the  spectroscope  also  adds  its  testimony 
to  this  evidence  for  the  locus  of  the  sun's  motion  among  the 
stars.     Thus  the  lines  in  the  spectrum  of  the  stars  in  the  gen- 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  IIQ 

eral  apparent  neighborhood  of  Lyra  and  Hercules  shift  toward 
the  violet  end,  which,  according  to  a  well  known  principle 
(Doppler's),  indicates  that  we  are  moving  in  that  general  di- 
rection. So  the  lines  in  the  spectrum  of  the  stars  In  the  oppo- 
site direction  on  the  celestial  sphere,  shift  toward  the  red  end, 
indicating  that  we  are  moving  away  from  that  part  of  the 
heavens.  Nor  does  the  sun  apparently  ever  twice  occupy  ex- 
actly the  same  point  of  space,  even  though  its  course  be  some 
gigantic  orbit,  as  no  orbit  is  itself  really  closed;  for  every 
known  orbit  is  of  a  spiral  nature.  This  is  true  of  the  moon's 
orbit  around  the  earth,  as  it  accompanies  the  earth  around  the 
sun.  And  this  is  true  of  the  orbits  of  the  planets  as  they 
journey  with  the  sun  through  space. 

As  already  noted,  the  latest  determination  places  the  point, 
toward  which  our  solar  system  is  at  present  moving,  in  the 
constellation  Lyra,  probably  at  or  near  the  brilliant  star  Vega. 
And,  the  approximate  speed,  according  to  the  more  recent  cal- 
culations, is  from  twelve  to  fifteen  miles  per  second.  Further 
explanation  of  this  point  is  not  needed  here. 

What  is  true  of  our  sun  is  found  to  be  equally  true  of  the 
stars  in  general,  among  which  our  sun's  size  and  velocity  are 
by  no  means  among  the  greatest.  In  fact,  it  is  certain  that 
there  is  no  star  in  the  heavens  above  absolutely  at  rest,  any 
more  than  there  is  any  planet  at  rest — or  even  any  atom  or 
electron,  of  which  we  shall  speak  in  a  later  chapter.  By  the 
combined  observations  of  many  astronomers  in  different  lands, 
data  have  been  collected,  from  which  the  approximate  average 
velocity  of  all  stars  observed  has  been  found  to  be  about  twenty 
to  twenty-one  miles  a  second.  But,  of  course,  the  proper 
motions  are  the  real  motions  only  when  they  are  perpendicular 
to  our  line  of  vision.  And  this  assumes  that  the  distances  are 
practically  known.  But,  as  probably  in  nearly  all  instances 
there  is  also  a  partial  motion  either  away  from  or  toward  us, 
the  average  real  star-motions  are  undoubtedly  greater  than  the 
proper  motions.  The  real  motions  may  be  called  the  resultants 
of  the  proper  motions  and  the  motions  toward  and  away  from 
us  called  the  radial  motions.  But  more  and  more  even  these 
radial  motions  are  being  approximately  determined  with  the 
use  of  the  spectroscope  equipped  with  a  camera,  so  that  the 
real  motions  of  the  stars  will  probably  more  definitely  be 
known.      And    as   to   whether    these    motions    are    apparently 


120  Creation  Ex  Nihiio 

straight  lines  or  describe  curved  orbits,  the  data  are  as  yet  lack- 
ing, owing  to  the  necessary  time  element  in  such  observations 
for  the  determination  of  even  the  minutest  arc  of  such  a 
gigantic  orbit. 

It  will  thus  also  be  seen  that  from  millennium  to  millennium 
the  configurations  of  the  constellations  are  undergoing  changes 
— though  very  slowly — by  these  proper  motions.  And  thus  wx 
really  see  the  very  constellations  of  heaven  different  from 
what  the  ancient  world  saw  them.  And,  for  that  matter,  on 
account  of  the  time  element  in  the  transmission  of  light,  we 
really  do  not  see  the  constellations  as  they  are  to-day,  but  as 
they  looked  from  a  score  of  years  to  many  hundreds  of  years 
ago,  however  small  the  changes  in  their  configurations  may 
have  been.  And,  if  any  star  were  blotted  out,  we  should  not 
miss  it  until  after  the  lapse  of  time  required  for  its  last  rays 
of  light  to  reach  us.  Surely,  there  is  nothing  permanent  even 
in  the  starry  heavens.  There  is  "change  and  decay  in  all 
around  I  see" — in  ourselves,  in  every  part  of  the  surrounding 
world,  and  in  the  very  heavens. 

Now,  upon  the  basis  of  the  generally  estimated  extent  of 
the  Milky  Way  system,  and  the  estimated  number  and  average 
size  or  mass  of  the  stars,  the  average  velocity  that  we  should 
expect  is  an  approach  to  the  average  calculated  velocity  of  the 
stars.  And  where  velocities  are  less  than  this  average,  they 
may  be  accounted  for  by  a  lesser  density  or  mass  of  the  neigh- 
boring stars.  And  where  this  average  velocity  is  exceeded,  it 
may  be  accounted  for  by  a  greater  mass  and  number  of  the 
surrounding  stars.  Moreover,  even  the  velocity  of  Arcturus 
and  that  of  the  seventh  magnitude  star  1830  Groombridge — 
which  are  probably  around  200,  or  even  more,  miles  per  second 
— need  not  be  accounted  for  by  supposing  that  these  stars  are 
injected  visitors  from  another  universe  beyond  that  of  our 
Milky  Way  system.  Their  larger  velocity  may  be  due  to  sev- 
eral things.  It  may  be  due  partly  to  greater  numbers  and 
masses  of  surrounding  stars,  and  partly  to  stars  closer  to  them 
than  the  average  assumed  distance.  Moreover,  the  number 
and  average  size  or  mass  of  the  stars  in  our  system — counting 
also  dark  bodies — is  considerably  greater  than  used  to  be  esti- 
mated, while  the  extent  or  general  density  of  their  distribu- 
tion may  also  differ  somewhat  from  that  of  theory. 

At  any  rate,  it  should  be  noted  that  this  very  average  velocity 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  I2I 

proves  the  universe  to  be  both  finite  in  extent  and  finite  in  mass 
of  matter.  And,  for  that  matter,  this  w^ould  undoubtedly  be 
true  upon  the  basis  of  any  other  average  velocity.  It  might  be 
stated  in  this  connection,  that,  in  an  infinite  universe,  gravi- 
tation would  have  to  be  infinite  at  any  one  point.  And,  either 
stellar  velocities  would  have  to  be  immeasurably  greater  than 
the  actual  fact,  or,  as  elsewhere  noted,  there  would  be  no  mo- 
tion at  all,  as  all  the  lines  of  force  would  be  balanced  at  every 
point.  This  latter  seems  rather  to  be  the  correct  conclusion — 
upon  the  assumption  of  an  infinite  universe. 

A  word  should  here  be  said  as  to  the  so-called  critical  veloc- 
ity, as  determined  by  Newcomb;  namely,  twenty-five  miles  a 
second,  any  exceeding  of  which  should  supposedly  carry  a  star 
beyond  the  bounds  of  the  known  universe  {Popular  Astronomy, 
p.  487,  sqq.).  Upon  the  basis  of  this  calculation,  stars  like 
1830  Groombridge  and  Arcturus,  whose  velocities  are  prob- 
ably upward  of  200  miles  a  second,  have  been  supposed  to  have 
come  into  our  galactic  system  from  an  infinite  distance  or  from 
some  ulterior  system  and  to  be  bound  on  their  long  journey 
outward  into  space  toward  or  through  another  ulterior  system. 
The  velocities  of  these  and  some  other  stars  have  therefore 
been  used  as  an  argument  for  an  infinite  universe,  or  for  the 
supposed  necessary  existence  of  so-called  universes  of  stars  be- 
yond our  own. 

It  is,  of  course,  seen  that  the  implied  supposition  in  such  a 
calculation  of  stellar  velocities  is  that  they  are  wholly  diU^  to, 
or  caused  by,  mutual  attractions  among  the  stars.  This  leaves 
out  of  consideration  what  is  absolutely  necessary  to  account 
for  any  motions  whatsoever;  namely,  some  initial  motions  not 
due  to  their  own  attractions  but  impressed  upon  the  stars  by 
a  power  other  than  that  of  mere  mutual  stellar  attractions. 
If  this  were  not  the  case,  then  the  motions  of  stars  at  or  near  the 
centre  of  the  stellar  system  could  not  be  accounted  for  except 
upon  the  supposition  that  the  universe  is  very  lopsided  in  mat- 
ter or  in  star-distribution.  If  present  motions  were  due  merely 
to  stellar  attractions  operating  through  indefinite  ages,  then,  if 
the  universe  were  finite,  there  would  necessarily  have  to  be  a 
balance  of  forces  and  therefore  no  stellar  movements  at  or 
around  its  gravitational  centre.  That  this  is  not  the  case  is 
evident  from  the  great  known  velocity  of  the  stars,  and  even 
of  our  own  sun,  near  the  apparent  centre  of  the  known  uni- 


122  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

verse.  And  if  the  universe  were  Infinite,  there  would  be  In- 
finite attractions  from  everj^  direction,  and  therefore  perfectly 
equalized  or  balanced,  at  every  point;  and  hence  there  would 
be  wo  stellar  motions.  As  the  latter  alternative  Is  altogether 
contrar)^  to  fact,  the  universe  can  not  be  infinite,  as  also  ex- 
plained elsewhere.  Hence,  we  are  compelled  by  the  former 
alternative  to  regard  the  present  motions  of  the  stars  as  the 
resultants  of  some  Initial  force  or  forces  impressed  upon  then: 
in  some  primal  condition  plus  the  force  of  gravitation  oper- 
ating since  that  primal  origination  of  them. 

Newcomb  even  at  places  also  implies  the  possible  existence  of 
some  to  us  unknown  force  or  forces  operating.  And,  In  speak- 
ing of  such  an  apparent  runaway  star  arriving  at  the  boundary 
of  our  known  system  after  several  million  years,  he  also  makes 
the  possible  existence  of  such  forces  an  alternative  to  hold  such 
star  within  the  bounds  of  our  system  as  against  that  of  con- 
tinuing "straight  forward  forever."  Indeed,  as  we  elsewhere 
prove,  all  the  motions  in  the  universe  must  necessarily  come 
from  initial  motions  or  position  of  potential,  from  the  potential- 
ity of  forces  Impressed  upon  it  by  an  external  transcendent 
Power.  But  it  Is  not  necessary  here  further  to  discuss  this 
phase  of  the  subject. 

Let  us  now  consider  Newcomb's  calculation  apart  from  the 
consideration  of  any  original  or  Initial  imposed  force  or  power. 
He  based  his  calculation  upon  the  estimate  of  100,000,000  stars, 
averaging  five  times  the  mass  of  our  sun,  and  a  galaictic  diam- 
eter of  30,000  light  years  (radius  of  15,000  light  years). 
In  the  light  of  more  recent  data  it  will  be  seen  that  his  critical 
velocity  of  twenty-five  miles  a  second  is  very  much  too  low. 
If  the  number  of  stars  in  the  actual  universe  would  be  the 
same  as  that  In  Newcomb's  assumed  universe,  the  radii  of 
the  two  universes  in  terms  of  their  respective  star  distances  (if 
equal  In  both)  would  be  the  same.  But,  as  Newcomb's  as- 
sumed universe-radius  (15,000  light  years)  Is  approximately 
three  tlm.es  the  probable  radius  (5,000  light  years),  as  pointed 
out  above,  the  average  distance  between  the  stars  in  the  actual 
universe  would  be  about  one-third  as  great  as  in  Newcomb's 
assumed  universe. 

The  above,  however,  assumes  the  number  of  stars  in  the 
actual  universe  to  be  the  same  as  that  in  Newcomb's  assumed 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  123 

universe  (100,000,000).  But,  as  we  have  already  shown,  the 
probable  number  of  stars,  not  even  considering  dark  bodies,  is 
about  1,000,000,000,  or  about  ten  times  as  great.  Hence,  by 
the  principle  indicated  before,  the  distance  between  the  stars 
would  be  only  j^-^,  or  about  -~-^,  as  great  as  in  our  former 
case  with  100,000,000  stars.  Therefore,  the  probable  distance 
between  the  stars  of  the  actual  universe  (radius  5,000  light 
years,  and  number  of  stars  1,000,000,000),  would  be  about 
-~^  of  ^,  or  -g^,  of  that  of  Newcomb's  assumed  universe 
(radius  15,000  light  years,  and  number  of  stars  100,000,000). 
The  above  is,  of  course,  based  upon  an  average  uniform  density 
of  distribution,  etc.  Hence,  as  gravitation  varies  inversely  as 
the  squares  of  the  separating  distances,  the  probable  gravita- 
tion between  the  stars,  if  equal  in  size,  would  be  the  square  of 
6.45,  or  41.6025,  times  as  great  in  the  actual  universe  as  in 
Newcomb's  assumed  universe;  and  so  of  gravitation  in  the 
aggregate,  as  could  readily  be  shown.  Thus,  this  far  greater 
density  of  distribution  would  be  a  very  important  factor  in  a 
star's  velocity,  and  all  the  more  so,  away  from  the  universe- 
center  and  within  its  bounds. 

It  is  true  that  "to  give  eight  times  the  velocity  [of  twenty- 
five  miles  a  second]  would  require  sixty-four  times  the  at- 
tracting mass"  of  the  stars,  according  to  Newcomb's  calcula- 
tion. But  the  actual  aggregate  mass  of  the  stars  is  undoubtedly 
very  much  greater  than  Newcomb's  assumed  mass.  He  as- 
sumed his  100,000,000  stars  indeed  to  average  five  times  the 
mass  of  our  sun  (exclusive  of  planets)  ;  and  this  is  probably 
considerably  greater  than  the  actual  mass  of  the  stars.  But, 
even  assuming  the  actual  average  mass  of  the  stars  to  be  only 
half  that  of  our  sun,  even  then  the  1,000,000,000  stars  would 
be  equal  in  mass  to  the  combined  star-mass  of  Newcomb's 
figures.  In  a  general  way,  it  might  then  be  said  that  the  ques- 
tion of  star-mass  might  almost  be  eliminated  as  a  factor  in  our 
problem  of  approximate  aggregate  gravitation  for  a  star  sup- 
posedly coming  from  an  infinite  distance  (the  gravitation  be- 
tween individual  stars,  due  to  the  mass-factor,  being,  upon 
this  supposition,  however,  much  less  than  in  Newcomb's  cal- 
culation). But,  even  eliminating  the  mass-factor,  gravitation 
within  the  universe,  upon  the  basis  of  actual  distribution,  would 


124  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

be  very  much  greater  than  upon  Newcomb's  assumed  data. 
However,  this  gravitation  would  be  considerably  increased  by 
the  probably  much  greater  average  mass  of  the  stars  than  that 
we  assumed  above,  as  well  as  by  the  possible  number  of  dark 
bodies,  whether  stellar  or  planetary.  As  gravitation  varies 
directly  as  the  product  of  the  masses,  this  greater  average  mass 
of  the  stars  would,  however,  also  greatly  increase  the  relative 
gravitation  between  any  two  stars. 

It  might  be  said  that,  if  the  average  star-mass  were  only  as 
large  as  that  of  our  sun,  the  gravitation  between  individual 
stars  within  our  system  would  be  four  times  as  great  from  the 
mass-factor  alone  as  if  it  were  only  half  as  great.  And,  upon 
this  basis  (1,000,000,000  stars,  each  as  large  as  our  sun),  the 
universe-gravitation  for  a  body  approaching  it  from  a  sup- 
posedly infinite  distance^  or  from  an  ulterior  system,  would  be 
twice  that  of  Newcomb's  data  (100,000,000  stars,  each  five 
times  as  large  as  our  sun). 

This  greater  attraction  due  to  the  undoubtedly  greater  ag- 
gregate mass  of  the  universe,  added  to  the  far  greater  attrac- 
tion due  to  the  far  greater  density  of  star-distribution,  than  in 
Newcomb's  assumed  universe,  would  give  us  the  equivalent  of 
an  attraction,  within  our  universe  bounds,  greater  than  New- 
comb's calculated  amount  of  ''sixty-four  times  the  attracting 
mass"  of  his  assumed  universe,  necessary  to  hold  such  a  sup- 
posed runaway  star  from  passing  out  of  our  stellar  system. 

Thus,  surely,  the  velocities  of  Arcturus  and  1830  Groom- 
bridge  afford  no  evidence  that  these  stars  came  from,  and  are 
bound  for,  space  beyond  the  confines  of  the  universe  we  know, 
whether  from  a  supposed  infinity  of  space  or  merely  from  some 
ulterior  system.  Other  and  more  recent  data  thus  make  such 
velocities  within,  and  confined  to,  our  system,  easily  possible. 
These  velocities  should,  therefore,  afford  no  suggestion  for  a 
supposedly  possible  infinite  universe. 

An  interesting  calculation  as  to  the  extent  and  density  of 
distribution  of  the  stars,  based  upon  the  law  of  gravitation  as 
the  cause  of  stellar  motions,  was  given  by  Lord  Kelvin  in  the 
Philosophical  Magazine,  January,  1902.  He  showed  that,  in 
a  universe  with  a  radius  of  3.09  X  10^^  kilometers,  or  nearly 
3,300  light  years,  with  matter  equivalent  to  1,000,000,000 
times  the  mass  of  our  sun,  uniformly  or  proportionately  distrib- 
uted throughout  its  extent,  a  stellar  velocity  of  108  kilometers 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  125 

(about  67  miles)  per  second,  in  the  case  of  a  body  originally  at 
rest  at  the  outer  surface,  would  result  from  gravitation  after  a 
lapse  of  25,000,000  years.  Hence,  in  the  case  of  a  universe  of 
1,000,000,000  suns,  originally  at  rest,  and  uniformly  distrib- 
uted, after  25,000,000  years  many  of  them  w^ould  now  have  a 
velocity  of  from  20  to  30  kilometers  (12.4  to  18.6  miles)  per 
second,  while  some  would  have  as  high  as  108  kilometers  a 
second.  Or,  if  thousands  of  millions  of  years  ago  they  would 
have  been  so  distributed  as  now  to  be  equally  spaced  through- 
out the  supposed  sphere,  their  mean  velocities  would  now  be 
about  50  kilometers  (about  31  miles)  a  second.  And,  as  this 
virtually  corresponds  to  fact,  this  learned  investigator  concluded 
that  there  are  perhaps  1,000,000,000  stars  within  a  radial  dis- 
tance of  about  3.09  X  10^^  kilometers.  Moreover,  from  the 
fact  that  if  there  were  10,000,000,000  stars  within  the  same 
space  the  mean  velocities  would  be  much  greater  than  those 
actually  known,  he  concluded  that  the  number  of  stars  must 
be  a  great  deal  less  than  that  number. 

This  calculation  thus  affords  us  another  bit  of  evidence 
against  the  theory  that  the  known  velocity  of  any  star  indicates 
that  it  might  have  come  from  and  be  bound  for  space  beyond 
the  bounds  of  the  stellar  universe  we  know,  especially  upon 
the  data  we  have  given  above,  and  making  due  allowance  for 
dark  bodies.  Of  course,  as  the  stars  are  not  distributed  with 
entire  uniformity,  velocities  more  than  the  above  average  would 
result  in  the  denser  portions  of  the  universe;  and  velocities 
less  than  this  average  in  the  portions  less  dense,  upon  the  as- 
sumed basis  of  this  calculation. 

Moreover,  if  the  extent  of  the  universe  of  stars  were  as- 
sumed to  be  greater  and  the  number  of  stars  proportionally 
more  numerous,  or  if  its  duration  of  existence  had  been  longer, 
than  the  assumed  figures  above,  this  supposed  gravitational 
velocity  would  necessarily  have  to  be  very  much  greater.  But, 
as  no  such  greater  stellar  velocities  are  known,  it  would  be 
evident  that,  upon  such  a  basis  of  reasoning,  either  the  extent 
of  the  universe  and  its  apparent  cosmical  age  should  approxi- 
mately correspond  to  these  assumed  figures;  or  that  if  the  ex- 
tent w^ere  greater  the  age  should  be  less,  or  vice  versa.  And, 
indeed,  the  age  or  life  of  a  star  or  sun  has  variously  been  esti- 
mated to  range  from  20  to  lOO  million  years.  And,  in  what 
is  to  follow,  we  hope  to  show  that  the  extent  of  the  universe 


126  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

also  nearly  matches  the  above  figures.  From  this  evidence  it  is 
thus  readily  seen  that  the  starry  universe  is,  almost  without 
the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  limited  both  as  to  space  and  as  to  time, 
or  in  other  words,  that  it  is  both  finite  and  temporal. 

Thus  the  very  existence  of  finite  velocities  of  the  stars  is  an 
evidence  that  the  universe  must  not  only  be  finite  as  to  space, 
but  also  as  to  time.  A  universe  eternal  in  duration,  as  also  one 
infinite  in  extent  of  space,  should  have  developed  infinite  veloc- 
ities (if  such  there  could  be).  Of  course,  from  points  already 
made,  finiteness  in  space  necessarily  implies  finiteness  in  time. 
Hence,  from  any  proof  of  the  finiteness  of  the  universe  as  to 
space  its  finiteness  as  to  time  must  necessarily  follow.  But, 
not  only  for  the  reason  here  given,  but  also  for  a  reason 
previously  given,  the  universe,  it  would  seem,  must  be  finite 
as  to  space;  namely,  because  even  any  velocities  or  motions 
imply  finiteness.  Hence,  as  the  universe  must  be  finite  as  to 
space,  according  to  this  line  of  reasoning,  so  also  must  it  be 
finite  as  to  time,  or  temporal.  Therefore,  we  have  added  an- 
other line  of  evidence  that  this  finite  temporal  universe  must 
have  been  created, 

V    EVIDENCE  OF  FINITENESS  IN  THE  AGGRE- 
GATE LIGHT  OF  THE  STARS 

We  come  now  to  the  development  of  a  point  which  has  to 
some  extent  also  been  treated  by  several  writers,  and  notably 
by  Lord  Kelvin  and  Simon  Newcomb.  It  is  that  of  the 
amount  of  light  received  from  the  stars. 

In  an  address  before  the  British  Association  at  Glasgow, 
1901,  by  a  line  of  reasoning  based  upon  the  actual  amount  of 
light  received  from  the  stars.  Lord  Kelvin  gave  it  as  his 
definite  conviction  that  the  starry  universe  cannot  be  infinite. 

So  Newcomb  held  that  if  the  universe  of  stars  were  infinite, 
the  "whole  heavens  would  be  filled  with  a  blaze  of  light  as 
bright  as  the  sun"  {The  Stars,  p.  230).  The  very  fact  that 
such  is  not  the  case,  he  held  as  manifest  negative  proof  that  it 
is  not  infinite.  On  the  next  page,  referring  to  this  evidence 
from  the  light  received  from  the  stars,  he  says,  "The  evidence 
seems  to  be  against  the  hypothesis  that  the  stars  we  see  form 
part  of  an  infinitely  extended  universe"  {Ibid.  p.  231).  Prof. 
Newcomb  thus  came  to  the  definite  conclusion,  based  upon  a 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  127 

simple  mathematical  induction,  that,  as  the  whole  heavens  are 
not  filled  with  a  blaze  of  light  as  bright  as  the  sun,  the  number 
and  distribution  of  stars  cannot  be  infinite. 

The  principle  involved  in  this  evidence  for  a  limited  universe 
from  the  amount  of  light  received  from  the  stars,  was  also 
recognized  by  A.  Cowper  Ranyard,  the  editor  of  Proctor's  last 
work,  Old  and  New  Astronomy,  1892,  as  witness  the  follow- 
ing words:  "If  we  reject  as  abhorrent  to  our  minds  the  sup- 
position that  the  universe  is  not  infinite,  we  are  thrown  back 
on  one  of  two  alternatives — either  the  ether  which  transmits 
the  light  of  the  stars  to  us  is  not  perfectly  elastic,  or  a  large 
proportion  of  the  light  of  the  stars  is  obliterated  by  dark 
bodies"  (p.  690,  Ranyard's  addition). 

It  would,  of  course,  only  naturally  follow  that  an  infinite 
number  of  stars — if  we  could  speak  of  such — would  give  forth 
an  infinite  quantity  of  light.  But  it  might  be  contended  that 
this  would  not  prove  the  light  at  any  one  point,  or  to  any  one 
body  like  our  earth,  to  be  infinite.  It  would,  however,  prove 
an  infinite  amount  of  light  distributed  through  an  infinite  ex- 
tent of  space.  All  it  might  be  contended,  therefore,  actually 
to  prove  is  that  that  light  would  be  uniformly  distributed  up 
and  down  the  realms  of  an  endless  space.  But  as  to  its  actual 
intensity  on  any  one  body,  that  would  be  another  question.  At 
any  rate,  one  star  at  an  infinite  distance — if  such  there  were — 
would  give  no  light  at  infinity.  The  variation  of  the  light 
being  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance,  it  would  follow 
that,  as  the  square  of  an  infinite  distance  is  necessarily  infinite, 
the  inverse  ratio  would  be  one  divided  by  infinity.  And,  as  this 
would  in  effect  be  nothing,  the  light  of  that  star  at  an  infinite 
distance  would  be  truly  infinitesimal;  that  is,  it  would  be 
nothing.  Now,  as  to  the  intervening  stars,  or  the  stars  be- 
tu^een  these  two  supposed  infinities — that  of  a  star  and  that  of 
its  supposed  observer — if  one  could  speak  of  intervening  stars 
between  two  infinities,  the  question  of  the  accumulated  in- 
tensity of  light  would  again  be  a  complex  one.  But  this  con- 
tention, upon  its  premises,  is  undoubtedly  correct  for  all  prac- 
tical reasoning. 

Indeed,  this  argument  proves  far  more  than  appears  upon 
its  face.  It  is  indeed  true  that,  if  the  number  of  stars  were 
infinite,  the  whole  heavens  would  thus  necessarily  have  to  be 
one  blaze  of  light.    And,  of  course,  an  infinite  number  of  stars 


128  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

would  have  to  be  distributed  over,  or  extended  through,  an 
infinite  space.  But  the  number  of  stars  and  the  space  of  their 
distribution  w'ould  not  need  to  be  infinite  in  order  to  cause 
the  heavens  to  shine  with  the  brightness  of  the  sun.  For  the 
universe  to  blaze  with  the  brightness  of  our  sun,  all  that  would 
be  necessary  would  be  to  have  the  number  of  stars  so  great 
and  so  distributed  as  completely  to  fill,  by  their  projections 
upon  it,  the  apparent  surface  of  the  whole  celestial  sphere  with 
stars.  And  this  would  be  the  case  when  every  line  of  vision 
from  the  observer  outward  would  meet  with,  or  be  intercepted 
by,  some  star,  either  comparatively  near  or  remote.  Thus  all 
the  stars,  of  various  distances,  would  seem  to  be  projected 
upon,  and  completely  cover  for  the  observer,  the  inner  surface 
of  the  imaginary  sphere  that  marks  the  outermost  stars.  And, 
the  stars,  by  such  an  ideal  arrangement,  would  not  need  even 
to  be  equal  to  the  number  necessary  actually  to  cover  the  whole 
surface  of  that  supposed  outer  sphere.  The  nearer  stars  would, 
to  the  observer,  cover  far  more  than  the  actual  area  of  their 
cross-sections,  projected  upon  that  spherical  background — and 
this,  of  course,  inversely  in  proportion  to  the  squares  of  their 
distances  from  the  observer. 

I  EXTENT  OF  UNIVERSE  FOR  NUMBER  OF  STARS  TO  BE  EQUAL 
TO  NUMBER  OF  STAR  CROSS-SECTIONS  IN  SURFACE  OF 
BOUNDING  SPHERE 

Let  us  now  suppose  the  stars  to  be  equally  distributed  accord- 
ing to  a  ratio  of  distribution  (near  our  system)  we  have  al- 
ready noted ;  namely,  30  to  40  stars  to  a  spherical  space  having 
a  radius  of  5  parsecs,  or  say,  one  star  for  every  space  equiva- 
lent to  a  sphere  with  a  radius  of  about  300,000  times  our 
distance  from  the  sun.  Such  a  star-density  would,  however, 
be  somewhat  greater  than  is  the  case.  Upon  this  basis  it  would 
require  far  less  than  infinite  space  to  contain  a  number  of  stars 
so  great  as  to  be  equal  to  the  number  needed  completely  to 
cover  the  inner  surface  of  that  far-off  sphere  that  would  mark 
the  last  outposts  of  such  a  starry  universe.  And  that  number 
of  stars  would  also  be  far  from  infinite.  Such  a  sphere-surface 
covered  with  stars  would,  of  course,  also  present  a  solid  wall 
of  light,  each  point  as  brilliant  as  each  individual  star  or  sun. 
And,  then,  what  of  the  effect  of  the  aggregate  light  upon  the 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  129, 

individual  observer! 

We  have  said  that  the  number  of  stars  for  a  universe  under 
such  conditions  of  distribution,  either  only  apparently  to  cover 
the  w^hole  heavens  or  to  be  actually  equal  to  the  number  that 
could  be  placed  upon  Its  outer  sphere,  w^ould  in  either  case  be 
far  from  infinite,  and  that  the  space  of  their  distribution  w^ould 
also  be  far  from  infinite.  What,  then,  v^ould  have  to  be  that 
number  and  the  bounds  of  that  universe?  Let  us,  then,  de- 
termine the  number  of  stars  of  a  universe  so  great  that  that 
number  would  be  equal  to  the  number  required  actually  even 
to  cover  the  whole  surface  of  its  outermost  containing  sphere.^ 

Let  us  now  conceive  space  to  be  divided  into  concentric 
spheres,  with  our  sun  at  their  common  centre.  And  let  the 
first  sphere  have  a  radius  of  300,000  times  our  distance  from 
the  sun.  Then,  let  the  radius  of  the  second  sphere  be  twice  that 
radius;  that  of  the  third  sphere,  three  times  that  radius;  and 
so  on  indefinitely. 

As  already  noted,  accepting  the  average  density  of  distribu- 
tion of  stars,  as  far  as  determined,  there  would  approximately 
be  one  star  for  what  we  shall  call  a  star-space  unit;  namely,  a 
sphere  with  a  radius  of  300,000  times  our  distance  from  the 
sun.  It  should  be  noted  here,  however,  that  In  case  of  our 
central  or  initial  sphere,  there  would  be  two  stars,  our  own  sun 
at  the  centre  and  alpha  Centaur!  not  very  far  from  its  surface. 
This  star  Is  somewhat  less  than  the  assumed  radius  of  the  first 
sphere  away  from  us,  its  distance  being  only  about  four  light 
years,  as  against  approximately  five  light  years  of  the  radius  of 
this  first  sphere.  But  this  does  not  affect  our  argument,  as 
we  are  assuming  a  uniform  density  of  distribution,  upon  the 
basis  of  the  ascertained  average,  given  above.  We  might  al- 
most have  taken  the  distance  of  our  first  neighbor  alpha  Cen- 
tauri — somewhat  above  twenty  trillion  miles  distant — as  the 
radius  for  this  star-space  unit,  which  would  probably  make 
allowance  for  an  underestimation  of  the  number  of  fainter 
stars,  and  for  the  greater  density  In  the  Milky  Way  wreath. 
But,  as  already  noted,  beyond  the  locus  of  the  Milky  Way 
wreath  of  stars  the  density  of  stars  apparently  becomes  less  and 
less  with  the  distance  outward.  We  shall.  In  these  calcula- 
tions, therefore,  use  the  radius  of  star-space  unit  indicated; 
namely,  300,000  times  our  distance  from  the  sun.  But,^  for 
that  matter,  whatever  radius  we  should  assume  as  the  basis  of 


I30  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

our  calculations,  it  would  equally  prove  our  point;  namely, 
that  the  universe  of  stars  is  finite,  both  as  to  number  of  stars 
and  as  to  space  of  distribution.  And  this  is  equally  true  of 
other  assumed  data  to  be  used  below. 

Now,  upon  the  basis  of  a  uniform  distribution  of  stars 
throughout  space,  the  numbers  of  stars  for  successive  spheres 
(inclusive  of  stars  in  preceding  spheres)  would  increase  as  the 
cubes  of  their  like  dimensions.  But  the  surfaces  of  these 
spheres  would  increase  only  as  the  squares  of  their  like  dimen- 
sions. Therefore,  as  the  spheres  succeed  one  another,  the  num- 
bers of  stars  within  the  spheres  would  multiply  much  faster 
than  the  areas  of  the  surfaces  of  the  containing  spheres.  And, 
therefore,  the  total  light  effect  would  steadily  increase  as  we 
should  pass  outward.  And  it  would,  of  course,  approach  in- 
finity as  our  sphere  would  approach  infinity — if,  indeed,  we 
could  speak  of  an  infinity  of  light  and  an  infinity  of  space. 

We  shall  now  assume  the  average  radius  of  a  star  to  be 
500,000  miles.  And,  as  already  noted,  the  average  calculated 
distribution  of  stars  is  approximately  one  star  for  a  sphere  with 
a  radius  of  300,000  times  our  distance  from  the  sun.  The 
radius  of  this  one-star  sphere  would  then  be  300,000  times 
93,000,000,  or  27,900,000,000,000,  miles. 

Now  let     r  =  the  radius  of  a  star  (500,000  miles), 
and  a  =  the  area  of  the  cross-section  of  a  star; 

then  a  =  irr^. 

So  let       R  =  the  radius  of  a*  one-star  sphere  (27,900,- 

000,000,000  miles), 
and  A  =  the  area  of  the  surface  of  a  one-star  sphere; 

then  A  =  47rR2. 

Again,  let  p  =  the  number  of  star  cross-sections  in  the 
surface  of  a  one-star  sphere; 
47rR2 


then 


Trr^' 

4Rf  . 

r2 


Now,  as  already  noted,  the  numbers  of  stars  for  successive 
spheres  would  vary  as  the  cubes  of  their  radii,  and  the  sur- 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  131 

faces  of  those  spheres  would  vary  only  as  the  squares  of  their 
radii.  Therefore,  the  numbers  of  the  contained  stars  would 
vary  faster  than  the  containing  sphere-surfaces  (or  star  cross- 
sections  upon  them)  directly  as  the  radii.  But,  upon  our 
basis  of  reasoning,  a  one-star  sphere  would  contain  only  one 
star.  Therefore,  this  star,  if  placed  upon  the  surface  of  its 
sphere  (which  would,  however,  not  be  the  case  in  a  uniform 
distribution),  would  occupy  one  star  cross-section  upon  it. 
But  completely  to  cover  an  outer  sphere  with  the  projections 
upon  it  of  the  star  cross-sections  of  a  one-star  sphere,  would 
require  all  its  star  cross-sections.     But  we  have  seen  that  the 

surface  of   a  one-star  sphere  would  contain    ^—5-    star  cross- 

r 

sections    (or,    ^—r-    times  as  many  as  the  number  of  stars — 

which  is  one — upon  its  surface)  to  be  projected.  Hence,  ac- 
cording to  the  above  law  of  increase  for  successive  spheres,  a 
sphere  whose  surface  would  be  completely  covered  with  the 
projections  of  a  one-star  sphere's  star  cross-sections  upon  it — 
upon  the  basis  of  a  uniform  density  of  stars,  etc. — would  have 

to  have  a  radius  equal  to   ^-^  times  that  of  a  one-star  sphere. 

.■D2  /iR^ 

This  radius  would,   therefore,  be    ^-j-    X   R,   or    ^-^    (by 

substituting  values  of  R  and  r,  we  could  directly  get  universe- 
radius  in  miles). 

Now,  let  R'  =  the  radius  of  a  universe-sphere,  such 
that  the  area  of  surface  in  star  cross-sections  would  be  equal 
to  the  number  of  stars  within  it, 

A'  =  the  area  of  the  surface  of  this  universe-sphere, 
and      p'  =  the  number  of  star  cross-sections  in  this  uni- 
verse-sphere; 
then  A'  -  ^irW\ 

Substituting  ^~  for  R', 

►  6 


132  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

But     Trr^  =  the  area  of  a  star  cross-section, 

therefore  p'  =      r^    ,  or  -^    (star    cross-sections   in   the 
7rr2  ^ 

surface  of  universe-sphere). 

Substituting  values  of  R  and  r  (27,900,000,000,000  and 
500,000), 

,  _  64  X  27,900,000,000,000^ 
500,000^  ' 

^  64  X  (279  X  lo^^y 

(5  X  io«)«       ' 
^  64  X  471,655,843,734,321  X  lo^g 

1252  X  lo^o 
=  i,93i>902,335,935,778,8i6X  lo^o  (the  number 
of  star  cross-sections  on  universe-sphere) . 

But  the  number  of  star  cross-sections  (p')  on  the  surface 
of  the  universe-sphere,  in  this  case,  is  equal  to  the  number  of 
stars  in  this  ideally  star-distributed  universe.  Hence,  a  uni- 
verse whose  number  of  stars  would  be  equal  to  the  number  of 
stars  necessary  completely  to  cover  its  outer  surface  (p')  upon 
the  ideal  basis  of  an  equal  distribution  throughout,  with  one 
star  for  every  star-space  unit  having  a  radius  of  300,000 
times  our  distance  from  the  sun,  would  contain  1,931,902,- 
335,935,778,816X10'^  stars. 

But  our  proposition  calls  for  one  star  upon  the  surface  of 
the  first  or  initial  sphere,  with  uniform  equivalent  density 
throughout.  Therefore,  as  similar  dimensions  of  similar  vol- 
umes are  to  each  other  as  the  cube  roots  of  their  volumes,  it 

follows  that  the  universe-radius  (R")  would  be  ^V i, 931)902,- 

335)935,778,8i6Xio'^  or  1,245,456X10^^  times  the  radius 
(R)  of  a  one-star  sphere.  But,  as  R  is  equal  to  279X10^^ 
miles,  this  universe-radius  would  be  equal  to  347,482,224X 
10^^  miles,  equivalent  to  about  59,182X10^^  light  years. 

This  universe-radius  may  also  be  deduced  from  the  sur- 
face area. 

This  number  is  then  the  radius  (R')  of  a  universe-sphere 
whose  number  of  stars  would  be  equal  to  the  number  of  star 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  133 

cross-sections  (p')  upon  its  sphere-surface,  upon  the  basis  of  an 
equal  distribution  of  its  stars,  with  one  star  for  every  star- 
space  unit  having  a  radius  of  300,000  times  our  distance  from 
the  sun.  That  is,  the  surface  of  the  containing  sphere,  or 
of  the  sphere  marking  the  outermost  stars  of  such  a  universe, 
w^ould  be  347,482,224X10^^  miles,  or  about  59,182X10^^ 
light  years,  distant  from  our  sun — or  1,245,456X10^°  times  the 

4R^ 
radius  (R)  of  a  one-star  sphere  (or  ^-^    X  R). 


We  may  also  briefly  state  another  very  simple  method  of 
determining  the  above  facts. 

Let  n  be  the  number  of  concentric  spheres  of  this  imaginary 
universe  of  stars.  As  the  areas  of  the  surfaces  of  the  succes- 
sive concentric  spheres  vary  as  the  squares  of  their  radii,  the 
numbers  of  star  cross-sections  must  vary  as  the  squares  of 
the  successive  sphere-numbers.  Hence,  one  star  upon  the  sur- 
face of  a  one-star  sphere  w^ould  cover  n^  star  cross-sections 
upon  the  nth.  sphere.  And,  to  cover  all  the  star  cross-sections 
in  the  surface  of  the  nth.,  sphere,  it  w^ould  require  an  equiva- 
lent of  the  projections  of  all  the  star  cross-sections  upon  the 
one-star,  or  first-star,  sphere.  Therefore,  the  number  of  star 
cross-sections  upon  the  surface  of  the  nth.  sphere  w^ould  be 
the  number  of  star  cross-sections  upon  the  surface  of  the  first, 
or  one-star,  sphere,  times  n"^.  But,  the  number  of  star  cross- 
sections  in  the  surface  of  a  one-star  sphere  is    r    (as  al- 

aR^ 
ready  determined),  or  ^^,  R  being  the  radius  of  this  one- 
star  sphere  and  r  that  of  a  star.     Hence,  the  number  of  star 
cross-sections    (p')    in  the  surface  of   the   nth.   sphere  v^^ould 

be    4^\ 

Ihus    p    =       2    • 

But,  as  there  is  one  star  for  the  first  sphere,  and  as^  the 
numbers  of  stars  vary  With,  the  cubes  of  the  like  dimensions, 
in  a  sphere  v^ith  a  radius  n  times  as  great  there  would  be  n^ 


134  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

stars.  But,  by  the  conditions  of  our  problem,  this  number 
(n^)  of  stars  is  to  be  the  same  as  the  number  of  star  cross- 
sections  (p')  in  the  surface  of  the  outer  sphere. 

Hence,  n^  =  p'. 

Substituting  n^  for  p'  in  our  equation  above, 


n^  = 


4RV 


r2     ' 


4R2 
or  n  =  -^. 

J.2 


Substituting  values  of  R(279  X  10^^)  and  r(5  X  10^), 
4(279  X  lo^y 

=  1,245,456  X  io^°  (concentric  spheres). 

But,  as  the  distance  between  the  concentric  spheres  is  equal 
to  R,  or  279X10^^  miles,  the  universe-radius  (R')  would 
be  equal  to  347,482,224X10^^  miles. 

But  the  number  of  stars,  by  the  conditions  of  our  problem, 
would  be  n^  or  (I,245,456XIO'^)^  or  1,931,902,335,935,- 
778,816X10^°.  And  as  the  number  of  stars  (n'^)  is  to  be 
equal  to  the  number  of  star  cross-sections  (p'),  there  would 
also  be  1,931,902,335,935,778,816X10''°  star  cross-sections. 

Or    p'  =  - — 5-,  or^~-.     Substituting  values  of  R'  (as 
^  7rr^  r^ 

above)  and  r(5  X  10^), 

,  _  4(347,482,224  X  id^^y 
P  ~        (5  X  lo^y 

=  1,931,902,335,935,778,816  X  io^°  (star  cross-sec- 
tions). 

It  should  need  no  explanation  or  proof  that,  according  to 
our  theorem,  the  number  of  stars  in  such  a  universe-sphere, 
upon  our  basis  of  distribution,  would  be  thus  equal  to  the 
number  of  star  cross-sections  in  its  surface  area.  But  an 
additional  paragraph  will  make  our  point  still  more  clear, 
while  it  will  also  definitely  verify  our  conclusions. 

We  found  the.  radius    (R')    of  this  universe-sphere  to  be 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  135 

^-r-  .     That  is,  it  would  have  a  radius  of    ^-^    times  that 

J.2  Y^ 

(R)  of  a  single-star  (or  one-star)  sphere.  And,  as  the 
numbers  of  stars  (s'  and  s)  in  these  spheres  would  be  to  each 
other  as  the  cubes  of   their  like  dimensions,  a  sphere  with  a 

aR^ 

radius  of  ^-^  times  that  (R)  of  a  one-star  sphere  would  con- 


tarn    ( -^  )     times    one    star,    or        ^  g         stars,    which,    as 

noted  above,  is  also  the  number  of  star  cross-sections  (p')   in 
the  surface  of  said  sphere — the  thing  to  be  proved. 

Or  V':V::('^)^R^ 
But    s':s::V';V. 


Therefore,  s' :  s  ::  (2-)    •  ^^y 


64R' 
or  s   :  s  ::  — ^  :  i. 


But   s  =  i; 


64R' 


therefore,  s'  :  i  ::  — -5-  :  i; 


or    s'  = 


^g    .     And  this  again  is  the  number  of  star 

cross-sections    (p')    in   the  surface  of   the  universe-sphere,   as 
it  has  to  be,  according  to  our  proposition. 

The  distance  to  the  surface  of  that  containing  universe 
would  thus  be  347,482,224X10^^  miles,  or  59,i82Xio^Might 
years.  And  yet,  while  this  distance  would  be  inconceivably 
great,  it  would  nevertheless  not  be  infinite. 

This  would  also  rather  imply,  that,  if  the  universe  were  that 
great  in  extent  of  space,  it  would  also  supposedly  have  to  be 
at  least  that  old  in  years  of  duration  in  time.  For,  if  the  light 
of  the  star-outposts  were  visible  in  this  aggregation  of  star 
light,  as  we  have  shown,  it  would  have  required  that  many 
years  to  travel  that  distance.  And  therefore,  if  seen,  we  should^ 
see  that  light  of  those  stars  as  they  shone  that  many  years  agOc 


136  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

But  that  IS  no  more  an  infinity  of  time  than  the  extent  of 
space  is  an  infinity  of  space.  Nor,  even  if  they  had  existed 
long  enough  for  their  light  to  have  made  its  journey  a  multi- 
tude of  times,  would  even  that  be  an  eternity  of  time,  any 
more  than  that  extent  in  space,  multiplied  by  any  number  w^hat- 
soever,  would  make  an  infinity  of  space. 

If  it  would  be  contended  that  the  distribution  of  stars 
throughout  space  is  denser  than  our  assumption,  we  should 
answer  that  the  greater  the  average  distribution  of  stars,  the 
lesser  in  extent  would  the  universe  have  to  be  thus  to  blaze 
with  light,  upon  the  basis  of  a  uniform  distribution.  And, 
even  if  their  average  distribution  were  less  dense  and  their 
average  size  smaller,  this  would  only  extend  the  bounds  of 
the  universe;  but  upon  no  assumption  whatever  would  it  need 
to  be  infinite  in  order  thus  to  blaze  like  a  solid  sun-studded 
sphere. 

We  are,  of  course,  aware  of  the  fact  that  in  a  universe  of 
ideally  uniformly  distributed  stars,  such  as  we  assumed,  the 
stars  would  not  really  be  thus  upon  the  surfaces  of  the  suc- 
cessive spheres.  If  that  were  so,  the  stars  upon  the  same  sur- 
faces of  successive  spheres  would  be  nearer  together  than  we 
assumed  and  those  upon  different  succeeding  surfaces  would 
be  farther  apart  than  those  upon  the  same  surface.  And  this 
fact  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  in  the  calculations  that  are  to 
follow.  However,  in  such  a  case  approximation  is  exact 
enough.  Nor  would  any  other  arrangement  very  materially 
alfpr  our  conclusions.  Hence,  we  are  assuming  such  a  some- 
what abnormal  arrangement  in  the  interests  of  clearness  and 
greater  simplicity. 

2      APPROXIMATE    EXTENT   OF    UNIVERSE    FOR    STARS    (DENSITY 

AS  IN  KNOWN   universe),  WITHOUT  OCCULTATIONS, 

COMPLETELY  TO   COVER  CELESTIAL  SPHERE 

According  to  the  above  calculation,  the  number  of  stars  in 
our  imaginary  universe  would  be  equal  to  the  number  of  star 
cross-sections  in  its  outer  surface.  But,  in  order  to  have  the 
whole  heavens  blaze  like  a  solid  wall  of  light,  only  every  line 
of  vision  would  need  to  be  met  by  some  star.  Now,  according 
to  our  arrangement  above,  there  would  be  i  star  for  the  first 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  137 

sphere  with  a  radius  equal  to  300,000  times  the  distance  of  our 
sun  from  us;  8  stars  (inclusive  of  the  star  in  the  first  sphere) 
for  the  second  sphere,  with  radius  twice  as  great;  27  stars  for 
the  third  sphere,  etc.  That  is,  if  we  assumed  all  the  stars  to 
be  located  upon  the  successive  sphere-surfaces  (which  could 
not  be  the  case,  as  already  pointed  out),  there  would  be  i 
star  upon  the  surface  of  the  first  sphere,  7  stars  (8-1)  upon 
the  surface  of  the  second  sphere,  19  stars  (27-8)  upon  the 
surface  of  the  third  sphere,  37  stars  (64-27)  upon  the  surface 
of  the  fourth  sphere,  61  stars  (5^-4^)  upon  the  surface  of  the 
fifth  sphere,  .  .  .  30,301  stars  (lOi^-ioo^)  upon  the  surface 
of  the  lOist.  sphere,  .  .  .  3,003,001  stars  (looi^-iooo^)  upon 
the  surface  of  the  looist.  sphere,  etc. 

Again,  at  the  second  sphere-surface  i  star  will  give  \  as 
much  light  as  i  star  upon  the  surface  of  the  first  sphere.  That 
is,  one  star  cross-section  upon  the  surface  of  the  second  sphere 
would  be  equivalent  to  one-fourth  of  a  star  cross-section  upon 
the  surface  of  the  first  sphere.  But,  as  noted  above,  there 
would  be  7  stars  upon  the  surface  of  our  second  sphere.  Hence, 
those  7  stars  upon  the  surface  of  our  second  sphere  would  be 
equivalent  to  J  stars  upon  the  surface  of  the  first  sphere. 
So,  I  star  upon  the  surface  of  the  third  sphere  would  be  equiva- 
lent to  1  of  a  star  upon  the  surface  of  the  first  sphere;  and 
the  19  stars  upon  the  surface  of  the  third  sphere  would  be 
equivalent  to  ^9^  stars  upon  the  surface  of  the  first  sphere. 
So,  one  star  upon  the  surface  of  the   loist.  sphere  would  be 

equivalent   to     • r  of  a  star   upon   the  surface  of   the  first 

sphere;  and  the  30,301  stars  upon  the  surface  of  the  loist. 
sphere  would  be  equivalent  to  ^°'^°\  or  2.97-|-j  stars  upon  the 
surface  of  the  first  sphere.  Likewise,  one  star  upon  the  sur- 
face  of    the    1 00 1  St.    sphere    would    be    equivalent    to   ;. 

lOOl^ 

of  a  star  upon  the  surface  of  the  first  sphere;  and  the  3,003,001 
stars  upon  the  surface  of  the  lOOist.  sphere  would  be  equiva- 

^^^^  *°  I'ooz'ooi^  °^  2.997-(-,  stars  upon  the  surface  of  the 
first  sphere.  The  stars  upon  the  io,ooist.  sphere  would  be 
equivalent  to  2. 999 7 -[-stars ;  and  for  successive  spheres,  2.99997, 
2.999997,  2.9999997,  etc.,  stars. 


138  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

Thus,  according  to  our  assumed  distribution  of  stars,  the 
stars  upon  the  surface  of  the  second  sphere  would  be  equiva- 
lent to  I  stars  upon  that  of  the  first  sphere;  those  upon  the 
third  sphere  would  be  equivalent  to  -V-  stars  upon  the  first 
sphere;  and  for  successive  spheres,  the  number  of  stars  would 
constantly  approach  the  limit  of  an  equivalent  of  3  stars  upon 
the  first  sphere,  as,  for  example,  2.97  for  the  lOist.  sphere, 
2.997  for  the  1 001  St.  sphere,  etc.  Or,  as  we  are  here  con- 
sidering a  universe  of  stars  with  an  almost  inconceivable  num- 
ber of  concentric  sphere-surfaces,  and  as  the  numbers  of  stars 
upon  the  successive  sphere-surfaces  approach  ever  nearer  to  an 
equivalent  of  3  stars  upon  the  surface  of  the  first  sphere,  we 
might  say,  as  a  close  approximation  to  the  actual  facts  of  such 
an  ideal  universe,  that  every  concentric  sphere-surface  would 
add  an  equivalent  of  3  stars  upon  the  surface  of  the  first  sphere. 

Let  us  now  assume  the  stars  to  be  distributed  in  every 
direction  in  such  a  way  as  to  have  each  star  appear  as  a  star- 
projection  upon  the  celestial  sphere,  that  is,  without  any  star- 
occultations.  Then,  for  the  whole  heavens  to  blaze  with  light 
at  every  point  like  the  sun,  there  would  have  to  be  only  enough 
successive  sphere-surfaces  to  make  an  equivalent,  by  their  addi- 
tions of  stars,  to  cover  the  whole  surface  of  the  first  sphere. 
But  the  surface  of  the  first  sphere  in  star  cross-sections,  as 

already  determined,   is    ■^,  R  being  the  radius  of  the  first 

sphere  (279X10^^)  and  r  the  radius  of  a  star  (5X10"). 
Hence,  if  each  successive  sphere-surface  would  add  an  equiva- 
lent of  3  stars  (or  star  cross-sections)  upon  the  surface  of  the 
first  sphere,  the  number  (n)  of  successive  sphere-surfaces  to 
make  an  addition  of  stars  equivalent  to  cover  the  whole  sur- 
face of  the  first  sphere  would  have  to  be  one-third  as  many  as 
that  of  the  star  cross-sections  upon  the  first  sphere. 

Thus,  n=i    oil-^. 

Substituting  values  of  R(279XiO^')  and  r(5Xio')  in 
this  equation, 

n    =  i   X    ^  ^/^x^J°r'    =    415,152   X   io'»  (concentric 

Spheres). 

Hence,  if  the  stars  were  so  distributed  as  not  to  occult  one 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  139 

another,  for  the  whole  heavens  to  blaze  with  light  like  that  of 
the  sun,  the  universe  would  have  to  extend  approximately 
only  one-third  as  far  as  in  our  former  calculation.  Or  there 
would  have  to  be  only  about  one  twenty-seventh  as  many  stars, 
while  the  number  of  star  cross-sections  in  its  outer  surface 
would  be  only  about  one-ninth  as  great,  as  in  our  first  imag- 
inary universe,  with  stars  equal  to  the  number  of  star  cross- 
sections  in  its  outer  sphere. 

Our  former  calculation,  under  ideal  conditions  would,  there- 
fore, allow  for  the  occultation  of  all  the  stars  beyond  one- 
third  of  the  distance  toward  the  surface  of  the  containing  uni- 
verse-sphere. That  is,  upon  such  ideal  conditions,  there  could 
be  26  occulted  stars  to  every  unocculted  (or  occulting)  star. 
Or  there  would  be  26  times  as  many  stars  occulted  as  un- 
occulted. Thus,  there  could  be  even  a  considerable  promis- 
cuous or  haphazard  arrangement  of  the  stars,  within  our  former 
universe  boundary — as  long  as  the  approximate  average  density 
would  remain  the  same — and  still  leave  enough  stars  unocculted 
to  cover  the  celestial  sphere  and  therefore  to  cause  it  to  blaze 
with  light  like  that  of  our  sun.  And,  indeed,  with  almost 
any  such  promiscuous  arrangement  conceivable,  the  heavens 
would  necessarily  have  to  blaze  well-nigh  at  least  like  a  solid 
wall  of  light. 

3       NO     INFINITE     EXTENT     OF     UNIVERSE     THUS     NECESSARY 
UNDER  ANY   CONDITION   OF  DISTRIBUTION 

If  now,  however,  we  should  extend  the  universe-bounds  so 
as  to  have  a  radius  ten  times  as  great  as  in  our  first  imaginary 
universe  above — 10  times  1,245,456X10^°  concentric  sphere- 
surfaces,  279X10^^  miles  apart — we  should  have  a  universe 
with  the  number  of  stars  10^ X 3^,  or  27,000,  times  as  many  as 
would  be  necessary,  under  our  more  ideal  arrangement  (with- 
out occultations),  to  cause  the  heavens  at  every  point  to  blaze 
like  the  sun.  This,  surely,  would  be  a  sufficient  number  of 
stars,  with  almost  any  conceivable  arrangement  of  them,  thus 
to  blaze.  With  almost  any  distribution,  only  retaining  our 
approximate  average  density,  there  would  be  thousands  of  stars 
occulted  for  every  unocculted  star  and  still  leave  the  celestial 
sphere  entirely  covered  with  stars  like  one  solid  sun. 

But    even  such  a  universe  of  stars,  it  is  needless  to  say, 


I40  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

would  not  be  infinite  either  in  extent  of  space  or  in  its  number 
of  stars.  Much  less  so  would  the  universe  of  our  first — or  of 
our  second — calculation  above  be  infinite  either  in  space,  matter, 
or  its  number  of  stars.  And,  in  order  to  make  every  allowance 
for  any  promiscuous  arrangement  of  stars,  for  any  multiplicity 
of  occultations,  our  imaginary  universe  might  be  conceived  of 
as  extending  any  number  of  times  the  distance  we  arrived  at 
above;  and  even  then  it  would  still  continue  to  remain  finite, 
however  far  supposedly  extended. 

Under  any  such  circumstances,  the  number  of  stars  not 
eclipsed  would  always  remain  very  many  times  less  than  the 
number  thus  eclipsed.  Nevertheless,  the  number  of  stars 
eclipsed  could  not  be  infinite  as  against  the  number  not  eclipsed, 
as  it  would  be  less  than  the  total  number  of  stars.  And,  of 
course,  the  number  of  stars  not  eclipsed  would  be  finite.  Hence, 
the  number  of  stars  eclipsed  (finite)  plus  the  number  not 
eclipsed  (finite),  or  the  total  number  of  stars,  could  not  be 
infinite,  as  no  two  finites  could  together  constitute  an  infinite. 
Hence,  also,  there  could  be  no  infinite  extension  of  the  uni- 
verse. Our  contention,  therefore,  is  that  even  a  distribution  of 
stars,  such  as  we  actually  know,  would  not  require  an  infinite 
extension  of  the  universe  to  make  the  heavens  blaze  like  a 
solid  wall  of  light.  With  the  stars  arranged  as  we  know 
them,  the  universe  should  not  need  to  extend  much  beyond 
the  bounds  of  our  first  imaginary  universe,  with  the  number  of 
stajs  equal  to  that  of  star  cross-sections  in  its  containing  sphere- 
surface,  thus  to  blaze  with  light.  And,  it  should,  surely,  not 
extend  beyond  the  bounds  ten  tirrtes  as  far  extended,  as  above 
noted.  And,  at  least  long  before  bounds  a  hundred  times  as 
distant  would  be  reached,  the  universe  would  necessarily  blaze 
like  the  sun  at  every  point  and  thus  still  remain  finite. 

But,  needless  to  say,  we  do  not  actually  receive  any  such 
amount  of  light  from  the  stars.  This  assumed  amount  is  to 
that  of  the  light  actually  received  somewhat  like  that  of  the 
sun  to  that  of  even  a  very  faint  telescopic  star,  which  can  only 
feebly  tremble  into  visibility  through  a  mighty  telescope.  This 
fact  surely  reduces  the  actual  universe  almost  to  an  atom  com- 
pared with  our  imaginary  universe,  and  especially  when  com- 
pared with  that  of  our  former  calculation,  almost  necessarily 
blazing  like  a  sun-studded  sphere.  And,  if  even  such  an  imag- 
inary universe  would  not  be  infinite,  it  surely  should  not  need 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  141 

any  further  argument  to  prove  the  actual  universe  finite — 
especially  in  the  light  of  the  amount  of  light  actually  received 
from  its  aggregation  of  stars. 


4      ACTUAL   AND    COMPARATIVE   AMOUNT   OF   LIGHT   RECEIVED 
FROM    ALL   THE   STARS 

It  will  now  be  in  order  to  take  a  comparative  measure  of 
the  extent  of  the  universe  from  the  actual  amount  of  light 
received  from  both  its  visible  and  invisible  stars. 

By  a  calculation  based  upon  carefully  ascertained  data, 
Simon   Newcomb  placed   the   total  amount  of   light  received 

from   all   the   stars   at   about  ^ the   amount   received 

90,000,000 

from  our  sun  alone.  And,  of  this  light,  according  to  an  estimate 
of  Charles  Young,  only  one  twenty-fifth  comes  to  us  from  stars 
visible  to  the  naked  eye  (and  even  this  relative  amount  has 
been  found  to  be  apparently  much  too  great).  Thus  It  would 
require  90,000,000  times  the  total  light  actually  received  from 
all  the  stars  to  be  equivalent  to  that  received  from  the  sun. 

But  our  sun  occupies  only  a  small  space  or  area  against  the 
surface  of  the  celestial  sphere.  Let  us  now  conceive  of  a 
sphere  (which  we  shall  call  the  solar-sphere)  having  its  centre 
in  the  earth,  with  its  surface  passing  through  the  sun.  From 
this  we  can  readily  determine  the  number  of  such  suns,  at 
the  same  distance,  that  it  would  require  completely  to  cover  the 
heavens. 

Now    let  R=rthe    radius     of     this    apparent    solar-sphere 
(93,000,000  miles), 
r=:the  radius  of  the  sun  (433,250  miles), 
A=the  area  of  this  apparent  solar-sphere, 
and        a=:the  area  of  the  sun's  cross-section. 
Then    A=47^R^ 
and        a=:  Trr^. 
Now    let    c=the  number  of  cross-sections  of  the  sun  in  the 
area  of  this  apparent  solar-sphere; 

47rR^ 

then       c= — ; — , 


_4R 


2 


142  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

Substituting  values  of  R  (93,000,000  miles)  and  r  (433,250 
miles), 

_4(93,ooo,ooo)^ 

^~~       433,250^      ' 
=  184,310   (nearly),  the  number  of  solar  cross-sections  in 
the  solar-sphere. 

That  is,  it  would  require  184,310  suns  like  our  own,  and 
at  the  same  distance,  completely  to  cover  the  heavens  like  a 
solid  wall  or  vault  of  light — and,  therefore,  to  blaze  with  light 
like  that  of  the  direct  blaze  of  the  sun.  Hence,  for  the  whole 
heavens  to  be  ablaze  with  light  like  that  of  the  sun,  it  would  re- 
quire i84,3ioX90>ooo>ooOj  or  16,587,900,000,000,  times  the 
light  actually  received  from  all  the  stars  visible  and  invisible. 

Let  us  now  assume  the  actual  number  of  stars  in  the  known 
universe  to  be  1,000,000,000,  as  a  close  approximation  to  the 
estimated  number.  It  would  then  require  16,587,900,000,000 
X 1 ,000,000,000,  or  1 65,879 Xio^^  stars,  promiscuously  ar- 
ranged in  1,000,000,000  star-groups  of  16,587,900,000,000 
stars  each  and  confined  within  the  bounds  of  the  known  uni- 
verse with  a  radius  of  approximately  5,000  light  years,  to  blaze 
at  every  point  like  the  sun.  That  is,  in  each  case  where  before 
there  was  one  star,  there  would  now  be  16,587,900,000,000 
stars  like  itself.  Or,  in  other  words,  there  would  be  1,000,- 
000,000  star-groups  of  16,587,900,000,000  stars  each,  the  star- 
groups  being  distributed  exactly  as  are  the  single  stars  now. 
Thus  this  multiplied  number  of  stars  would  be  such  as  to  be 
equivalent  to  having  approximately  16,587,900,000,000  stars 
(instead  of  one)  upon  the  first  star-sphere  with  radius  of  300,- 
000  times  our  distance  from  the  sun. 

Now,  as  these  star-groups  take  the  places  of  single  stars  in 
a  former  similar  calculation,  we  can  here  treat  them  as  though 
they  were  single  stars  with  an  intensity  of  light  16,587,900,- 
000,000  times  as  great  as  that  of  a  single  star  before  the  multi- 
plied increase.  And,  as  they  displace  1,000,000,000  stars  ap- 
proximately so  uniformly  distributed  as  to  have  one  star  upon 
the  first  concentric  sphere-surface,  there  must  be  1,000  such 
concentric  sphere-surfaces.  But  as  the  stars  (single  stars 
instead  of  star-groups)  upon  each  of  the  successive  spherical 
shells  would  be  equivalent  to  approximately  three  stars  upon 
the  initial  sphere-surface,  the  stars  (single  stars  instead  of  star- 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  143 

groups)  of  the  1,000  spherical  shells  would  be  equivalent  to 
approximately  3,000  stars  upon  that  first  sphere-surface.  Hence, 
as  single  stars  are  here  displaced  by  star-groups  of  16,587,900,- 
000,000  stars  each,  or  as  there  would  be  16,587,900,000,000 
stars  (instead  of  one)  upon  the  initial  sphere-surface,  all  these 
star-groups  for  the  1,000  spherical  shells  would  be  equivalent  to 
16,587,900,000,000  X  3,000  stars,  or  49,763,700,000,000,000 
stars,  upon  the  first  sphere.  Therefore,  the  16,587,900,000,000  X 
1,000,000,000,  or  165,879  X  10",  stars  (causing  all  heaven 
to  blaze  like  the  sun),  distributed  in  star-groups,  as  indicated, 
and  confined  within  the  bounds  of  the  known  universe  of  ap- 
proximately 5,000  light  years,  would  give  a  light-equivalence 
of  497,637  X  10^^  stars  upon  the  first  star  sphere-surface  of 
300,000  times  our  distance  from  the  sun. 

Now,  as  already  noted,  the  approximate  amount  of  light 
added  by  each  of  the  successive  spherical  shells  in  a  universe  of 
ideally  uniformly  distributed  stars,  would  be  three  times  that 
of  one  star  upon  the  first  sphere-surface.  But  here  we  have  an 
equivalent  of  497,637  X  10"  stars  upon  the  first  sphere-sur- 
face. Therefore,  for  stars,  uniformly  distributed  so  as  to  have 
one  star  upon  the  first  sphere-surface,  etc.,  to  produce  the  same 
light-effect  at  the  universe-centre — namely,  to  blaze  at  every 
point  like  the  sun — as  these  165,879  X  10"  stars,  distributed  in 
star-groups  and  confined  within  the  radius  of  5,000  light  years, 
it  would  require  one  third  of  497)637  X  lO^S  or  165,879  X 
10^^,  concentric  spheres. 

Therefore,  the  radius  of  this  imaginary  universe-sphere,  de- 
termined from  the  actual  amount  of  light  received  from  the 
stars,  would  be  approximately  165,879  X  10"  times  279  X 
10^^  miles,  or  46,280,241  X  10^2  miles,  that  is,  462,802,410  X 
lO^i  miles.  This  is  approximately  78,845  X  10"  light  years 
(about  157,690  X  10^  times  the  radius  of  the  known  universe). 
And  the  approximate  number  of  stars  would  be  (165,879  X 
Io")^  or  4,564,300,461,446,439  X  I0^^  that  is,  4,564,300,- 
461,446,439,000  X  10^^ 

Let  us  now  go  back  to  our  first  imaginary  universe  with  the 
estimated  density  (in  stars)  of  our  galactic  system,  so  extended 
as  to  cause  all  heaven  to  appear  like  a  solid  wall  of  light,  or  at 
least  well-nigh  so,  even  after  making  allowance  for  a  consider- 
ably   promiscuous    arrangement    with    associated    occultations. 


144  Creation  Ex  "Nihil o 

We  found  that  it  would  have  a  radius  of  347,482,224  X  10^^ 
miles,  or  59,182  X  lO^^  light  years  (about  118,364X10^ 
times  the  calculated  radius  of  the  known  universe),  and  that 
its  approximate  number  of  stars  would  be  1,931,902,335,935,- 
778,816  X  10^^ 

The  closeness  between  these  figures,  or  sets  of  figures,  and 
the  parallel  ones  arrived  at  above  from  the  light  of  the  stars 
in  the  known  universe  (the  radii  being  as  close  to  each  other  as 
3  to  4),  is  so  remarkably  striking  as  to  need  no  comment. 
These  two  sets  of  figures  so  nearly  match  each  other  that  if  all 
the  exact  data — as  to  number  of  stars  and  total  light  of  the  sun 
and  of  the  stars — could  be  determined,  and  if,  instead  of  our 
theoretical  ideal  arrangement  for  easy  computation,  the  calcu- 
lation could  be  based  upon  the  actual  distribution  of  stars,  they 
would  probably  fully  match  each  other — as  indeed  they  should. 
And,  for  that  matter,  even  if  one  or  other  of  the  factors  should, 
by  further  investigation,  be  found  to  be  larger  than  what  we 
used  in  our  calculations,  it  would  undoubtedly  also  be  found 
that  some  other  factor  or  factors  would  be  smaller  than  what 
we  used.  Thus  one  factor,  by  being  smaller  or  larger,  would 
probably  compensate  for  any  deviation  from  fact  of  any  other 
factor  or  factors.  It  is  thus  seen  that  the  remarkable  closeness 
between  these  parallel  figures  indicates  that  the  astronomical 
data — as  to  the  extent  (radius,  about  5,000  light  years)  of  our 
galactic  universe  and  its  number  of  stars  (1,000.000,000),  etc. 
— used  in  our  calculations,  must  closely  match  the  actual  facts 
of  the  universe,  and  that  to  a  great  degree  astronomy  is  truly  an 
exact  science. 

Hence,  these  facts  of  our  latter  calculation  from  the 
actual  amount  of  light  received  from  sun  and  stars,  add  their 

tremendous  weight  of  evidence  to  our  contention ;  namely,  that 
the  actual  universe  of  stars  is  not  only  finite,  but  that  it  is 
measurably  so.  These  facts  should,  therefore,  vastly  strengthen 
our  several  arguments  above  for  a  very  limited  universe.  These 
astonishing  facts  should  also  constitute  an  unanswerable  evi- 
dence that  at  least  comparatively  very  little,  if  any,  light  is 
lost  by  some  hypothetical  light  interference  in  its  transmission 
from  very  distant  stars  through  the  ether  of  space,  except  such 
as  is  intercepted  by  other  large  or  small  bodies  in  space — a 
quite  recently  developed  objection,  which  we  shall  presently 
more  fully  answer. 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  145 

Though  we  should  not  anticipate  the  overwhelming  con- 
clusion from  the  evidences  for  a  finite  universe,  we  may  yet 
here  say  that,  as  they  show  the  universe  to  be  finite,  they  also 
imply  that  it  must  be  temporal  and  that  therefore  it  must 
have  been  created.  And,  needless  to  say,  such  creation  must 
have  been  out  of  nothing  by  a  transcendent  supreme  spiritual 
Personality. 


5       OBJECTION     FROM     HYPOTHETICAL     LIGHT     INTERFERENCE 

ANSWERED 

In  his  recent  work,  The  Universe  and  the  Atom,  19 16,  Mr. 
Marion  Erwin,  C.  E.,  has  developed  a  theory  of  light  inter- 
ference in  its  transmission  through  space,  that,  upon  its  sur- 
face, seems  to  have  some  foundation  in  the  theory  of  light,  if 
not  in  fact.  But,  this  objection  will  be  found  to  be  far  from 
a  conclusive  argument  against  the  proof  from  the  light  of  the 
stars,  given  above,  for  a  finite  universe.  In  fact,  even  if  there 
were  some  direct  interference  of  light,  that  would  only  push 
farther  outward  the  confines  of  the  universe.  But  it  would 
not  push  them  beyond  even  measurable  distance.  The  rays 
interfered  with  or  intercepted,  instead  of  being  lost  altogether, 
would  only,  like  a  multiplicity  of  echoes,  be  reflected,  or  at  least 
diffused;  and  thus,  long  before  a  limiting  infinity  would  be 
reached,  they  should  cause  the  whole  heavens  to  blaze  with  light 
like  that  of  the  sun.  But,  of  course,  we  could  not  even  speak 
of  a  limiting  infinity,  as  such  phraseology  would  be  self-con- 
tradictory. A  supposed  limiting  infinity  would  necessarily 
imply  bounds,  and  would  therefore  be  a  non-infinity. 

But,  that  the  actual  facts  as  to  light  transmission  do  by  no 
means  match  Mr.  Erwin's  theory  of  interference,  is  only  too 
manifest  from  what,  in  anticipation  of  this  objection,  was  said 
above.  This  evidence  against  any  such  supposed  considerable 
light  interference,  is  very  much  strengthened  by  the  fact  of 
the  actual  addition  of  new  stars  with  continued  improvements 
in  our  optical  instruments.  And  this  is,  of  course,  also  evident 
from  the  great  amount  of  light  received  from  even  invisible 
stars — at  least  96%  of  the  whole  amount  received  from  all 
the  stars.  Surely,  if  Mr.  Erwin's  theory  of  light  interference 
were  matched  by  fact,  it  should  to  a  great  extent  apply  already 
in  the  case  of  the  first  stars  seen  with  the  unaided  eye,  and 


146  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

of  course  much  more  so  before  we  should  reach  the  ordinary 
telescopic  stars,  and  surely  altogether  so  before  we  should 
reach  those  distant  stars  that  only  faintly  vibrate  into  visi- 
bility through  the  largest  equatorial.  But  the  fact  that  the 
light  from  even  those  far-off  telescopic  points  in  space  reaches 
us  without  any  marked  interference — not  to  speak  of  the  fact 
that  the  sensitive  plate  of  the  camera  reveals  others  still  farther 
beyond — should  be  sufficient  proof  that  light  transmitted 
through  the  spaces  of  the  ether,  is,  as  has  always  been  held, 
practically,  and  perhaps  entirely,  uninterfered  with  or  un- 
hindered. 

That  the  light  of  the  stars  is  not  interfered  with  to  any 
appreciable  extent,  if  at  all,  is  also  evident  from  the  fact  that 
the  light  of  even  the  very  faint  distant  stars  is  transmitted 
through  the  ether  as  a  compound  of  all  the  colors  of  the  spec- 
trum. If  there  were  interference,  it  would  undoubtedly  be 
of  the  nature  of  selective  absorption  of  the  light  waves  of  dif- 
ferent lengths,  a  fact  which  would  readily  become  apparent 
from  the  light-spectrum.  This  objection  has  therefore  no  valid- 
ity. 

VI  THE  AGGREGATION  OF  ANY  INDEFINITE 
NUMBER  OF  SO-CALLED  UNIVERSES  ALSO 
FINITE 

In  order  to  offset  the  force  of  this  cumulative,  and  what 
should  be  an  altogether  convincing,,  argument,  that  the  physi- 
cal universe  is  finite,  it  may  be  contended  that  it  refers  and 
applies  only  to  one  stellar  system,  or  to  a  continuous  system  of 
stars. 

Thus  men  will  insist,  in  spite  of  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
that  the  universe  is  infinite.  And  the  most  popular  argument 
resorted  to  as  a  final  defense  of  their  position,  is  that  of  a  possi- 
bility of  numberless  stars  or  star-systems  beyond  our  own  galac- 
tic system.  Thus  Mr.  Erwin  says,  "If  we  had  only  a  one 
Galaxy  system,  and  all  the  outside  space  be  void,  all  the  suns 
in  that  system  would  have  long  since  radiated  all  their  heat  into 
space,  and  by  loss  of  kinetic  energy  the  entire  system  would 
be  non-luminous  and  dead.  If  there  are  processes  going  on 
which  will  inevitably  bring  the  entire  physical  universe  to  a 
kinetic  death  at  some  definite  time  in  the  future,  since  time  in 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  147 

the  past  is  unlimited,  the  human  mind  cannot  escape  the  con- 
clusion that  the  death  event  should  have  happened  long  ago. 
Nor  does  it  aid  us  to  imagine  a  beginning  of  the  process,  unless 
we  assume  that  w^e  have  under  consideration  only  one  system 
of  a  still  larger  universe,  and  that  in  this  endless  universe  there 
is  going  on  by  operation  of  natural  laws,  an  endless  cycle  of 
birth,  life,  death,  and  resurrection  of  systems.  If  one  system 
is  going  to  its  death,  as  it  must  be,  because  of  the  gradual  loss 
of  kinetic  energy  through  radiation  outward  into  space,  there 
must  be  another  system  in  process  of  building  elsewhere"  ( The 
Universe  and  the  Atom,  pp.  119-120). 

This  is,  of  course,  avowedly  a  development  of  Arrhenius's 
theor>'  of  repeating  or  successive  universes,  whose  choice  pas- 
sages he  quotes  as  evidence.  Of  this  theory,  according  to 
Arrhenius,  we  shall  speak  in  a  later  chapter.  For  the  present 
it  is  sufficient  to  say  of  Mr.  Erwin's  statement  of  it,  that  it 
of  course  assumes  time  in  the  past  to  be  unlimited  and  the 
processes  of  nature  to  have  had  no  beginning,  which,  however, 
are  the  chief  questions  at  issue.  It,  moreover,  assumes  also  the 
multiplicity  of  star-systems — as  it  merely  assumes  the  above — 
because  of  the  necessity  of  these  assumptions  to  save  existing 
nature  from  a  certain  death  and  dissolution.  And,  of  course, 
an  endless  universe  with  one  system  being  born  while  another 
is  going  to  its  death — as  indeed  an  endless  cycle  of  the  whole — 
supposedly  comes  out  of  these  assumptions.  We  must,  there- 
fore, measure  the  conclusion  by  the  value  of  the  assumed  prem- 
ises. 

A  preconceived  theory  that  requires  proof,  has  thus  often 
led  to  rather  strange  conclusions  upon  the  basis  of  premises  that 
had  necessarily  to  be  assumed  to  make  such  theory  work.  What, 
then,  is  the  value  of  such  theory  as  a  whole?  Such  objections 
are,  therefore,  totally  valueless  as  proofs  against  the  actually 
demonstrable  finiteness  of  the  universe,  as  seen  above. 

It  was,  indeed,  held  by  many  astronomers  of  the  past  that 
the  stellar  system  to  which  our  sun  belongs  is  only  one,  and 
perhaps  but  a  comparatively  small  one,  of  the  indefinite,  per- 
haps infinite,  number  of  such  systems  distributed  throughout  a 
supposedly  infinite  space.  Thus,  some  of  the  fainter  star- 
clusters  used  to  be  considered  by  some  as  far-of?  systems  of 
suns  like  that  of  our  own  galaxy,  the  Milky  Way  system.    And, 


148  Creation  Ex  "Nihil 0 

while,  before  the  telescope  resolved  them  into  stars,  the  sup- 
position might  have  been  regarded  as  a  plausible  one,  surely 
upon  their  resolution  there  should  have  been  no  excuse  for  so 
regarding  them.  Their  ver}'  resolution  into  stars  should  have 
been  a  sufficient  proof  that  they  belong  to  our  galactic  system. 
That  fact  should  have  proved  that  the  locus  of  distribution  of 
their  individual  stars  is  of  the  same  order  as  that  of  individual 
stars  elsev^'here,  belonging  to  our  system.  And  even  in  cases 
w^here  the  resolution  has  been  but  very  partial  or  indefinite, 
the  evidence  now  is  all  against  regarding  them  as  other  star- 
systems  beyond  our  own,  and  of  course  resisting  all  attempts  to 
measure  their  parallaxes.  All  these  fainter  clusters,  no  less 
than  the  Pleiades,  etc.,  are  now  definitely  known  to  belong  to 
our  galactic  system  of  stars,  in  the  direction  of,  or  within, 
whose  wreath-like  denser  portion  they  are  the  most  numer- 
ous. And  as  to  their  component  stars,  these  apparently  are  of 
all  various  sizes — and  often  even  within  the  same  cluster — al- 
though some  clusters  consist  mostly  of  comparatively  larger, 
and  some  of  comparatively  smaller,  stars.  In  some  clusters 
the  component  stars  appear  to  be  on  an  average  of  a  consider- 
ably lower  order  of  size  than  in  others.  These  are  probably 
of  the  order  or  actual  magnitude  of  our  large  planets,  rather 
than  of  stars  like  our  sun.  But,  as  long  as  their  parallax  can 
not  be  determined  with  anything  like  exactness,  the  actual  sizes 
of  these  component  cluster-stars  must  remain  very  indefinite. 

On  this  point  Charles  Young  had  this  to  say:  "Forty  years 
ago  the  accepted  view  was  that  the  stars  composing  the  clusters 
are  no  smaller  than  ordinary  stars,  and  that  the  distance  of  the 
star-clusters  is  immensely  greater  than  that  of  the  isolated 
stars.  ...  It  is  now,  however,  quite  certain  that  the  other 
view  is  correct, — that  star-clusters  are  among  our  stars  and 
form  part  of  our  universe.  Large  and  small  stars  are  so  asso- 
ciated in  the  same  group  in  many  cases,  as  to  leave  us  no  choice 
of  belief  in  the  matter.  It  is  true  that  as  yet  no  parallax  has 
been  detected  in  any  star-cluster;  but  that  is  not  strange,  since 
a  cluster  is  not  a  convenient  object  for  observations  of  the 
kind  necessary  to  the  detection  of  parallax"  {General  As- 
tronomy, p.  503). 

What  is  true  of  the  star-clusters  is  equally  true  of  the  many 
nebulae  scattered  up  and  down  the  zones  of  space  with  in- 
creasing number,  as  we  follow  them  from  the  galactic  equator 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  149 

toward  the  galactic  poles.  The  distribution  of  these  is  the 
reverse  of  that  of  star-clusters.  While  the  clusters  are  more 
frequent  in  the  galactic  belt,  the  nebulae  are  most  numerous  to- 
ward the  galactic  poles. 

These  nebulae  used  to  be  considered  as  different  from  star- 
clusters  only  in  being  much  farther  away  from  us.  And  the 
fact  that  they  could  not  be  resolved  into  stars,  as  some  clusters 
even  then  were  being  resolved,  was  considered  as  a  definite 
proof  of  their  being  beyond  star-clusters,  and  therefore  of  being 
universes  still  further  in  the  infinite  stellar  spaces  beyond  our 
corner  of  the  greater  universal  whole.  The  evidence  of  the 
spectroscope  has,  however,  precluded  all  possibility  of  ever  re- 
solving them  into  separate  stars,  as  they  are  proved  not  to  be 
stars.  While  some  have  somewhat  solid  nuclei,  the  spectroscope 
shows  them  to  be  of  a  highly  heated  gaseous  constitution.  And 
so  their  frequent  association  with  distinguishable  stars,  to  whose 
environs  they  unmistakably  belong,  proves  them  also  to  belong 
to  our  system.  And,  therefore,  astronomers  have  also  quite 
generally  abandoned  the  idea  of  associating  them  with  regions 
beyond  our  own  galactic  system. 

On  this  point  also  we  shall  quote  Dr.  Young:  "Attempts 
have  been  made  to  measure  the  parallax  of  one  or  two,  but  so 
far  unsuccessfully.  Still  it  is  probable,  indeed  almost  certain, 
that  they  are  at  the  same  order  of  distance  as  the  stars.  The 
wisps  of  nebulosity  w^hich  photography  shows  attached  to  the 
stars  in  the  Pleiades  (and  a  number  of  similar  cases  appear 
elsewhere),  the  nebulous  stars  of  Hershel,  and  numerous  nebulae 
which  have  a  star  in  the  centre, — these  compel  us  to  believe 
that  in  such  case  the  nebulosity  is  really  at  the  star"  {Ibid,, 
p.  509). 

Thus  the  later  and  maturer  conclusions  of  astronomers, 
instead  of  enlarging  the  bounds  of  our  universe  beyond  the  cal- 
culations based  upon  its  earlier  and  more  fragmentary  dis- 
coveries, have  rather  greatly  lessened  its  bounds. 

But  is  it  not  possible  then  that  there  may  be  stellar  systems 
beyond  our  own  galactic  system  ?  What  we  are  denying  is  not 
their  possible  existence,  but  the  existence  for  us  of  any  positive 
evidence  for  their  existence.  There  surely  is  not  even  any 
circumstantial  evidence  anywhere  up  and  down  the  depths  of 
space  in  proof  of  other  stellar  systems,  or  outer  universes.    The 


150  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

coal  sack  theory,  or  any  theory  of  supposed  discernible  ulterior 
systems,  any  theory  of  dark  or  invisible  systems,  can  surely  not 
truthfully  be  said  to  afford  such  evidence.  Indeed,  supposedly 
dark  universes  would  even  be  scientifically  impossible,  according 
to  the  very  theories  which  men  of  science  universally  accept. 
Therefore,  if  stellar  systems  beyond  our  own  do  exist,  unless 
altogether  isolated  from  all  almost  infinitely  distant  associa- 
tion with  our  own  system,  their  apparent  optical  concentration 
upon  a  space  almost  like  a  point,  should  surely  make  their 
aggregate  light  sufficiently  strong  for  transmission  into  and 
through  our  system. 

But,  even  if  this  were  so,  it  would  not  alter  our  conclusion. 
For,  then,  each  of  the  far-off  universes,  appearing  like  a 
veritable  concentrated  point  of  light,  might  be  treated  in  a 
further  development  of  our  argument  from  even  its  light 
for  a  finite  universe,  as  though  it  were  a  single  star  of  an 
immeasurably  higher  order.  And  then,  by  applying  to  such 
supposed  widely  separately  stellar  systems — or  apparent  single 
stars  or  points  of  light — our  argument  above  for  one  continu- 
ous stellar  system,  it  should  readily  be  seen  that  it  would  by 
no  means  require  an  infinite  number  and  extension  of  such 
stellar  systems  to  make  the  whole  heavens  blaze  even  from 
them  like  a  solid  vault  of  light. 

The  above  argument  would  even  be  equally  applicable  to 
any  number  of  even  such  supposed  superior  universes.  Hence, 
no  matter  what  number  of  even  still  higher  universes  of  such 
superior  universes  there  might  be,  that  number  would  still  be 
finite,  when,  at  any  one  point  within  it,  it  would  blaze  like  a 
solid  ensphering  sun.  Hence,  as  the  heavens  do  not  thus  blaze 
with  light,  the  ulterior  universe  of  such  a  supposed  multiplicity 
of  higher  universes — or  of  any  number  of  successive  orders  of 
them,  one  within  the  other,  or  constituting  one  another  in 
their  order — however  regarded,  could  not  be  infinite,  either 
in  its  number  of  stars  or  in  its  extension. 

However,  of  such  transmitted  light  from  such  far-off  stellar 
systems,  or  systems  of  systems,  we  have  no  evidence  what- 
ever. But,  it  might  be  contended  that  between  such  stellar 
systems  there  might  be  no  transmitting  medium  like  our  ether. 
But,  then,  this  would  seem  to  be  contrary  to  all  our  concep- 
tions of  some  ultimate  unity  in  all  existence.  Moreover,  the 
very  conception  of  an  empty  void  unfilled  even  by  ether,  or 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  15 1 

something  analogous  to  it,  is  almost  as  abhorrent  to  the  mind 
of  man  as  it  used  to  be  thought  to  be  abhorrent  to  the  nature 
which  that  mind  contemplates.  Such  absolute  space  vacuity 
is  as  impossible  to  human  conception  as  it  is  totally  contrary 
to  nature.  Surely,  no  one  should  seriously  consider  the  possi- 
bility of  such  a  void  of  space.  Nor  have  men  of  science  and 
philosophers  taken  to  such  a  view.  As  this  point  has  there- 
fore no  significance,  we  need   not  further  discuss  it. 

Suppose,  however,  that  there  were  such  stellar  systems,  or 
universes  of  them  beyond  our  own,  either  so  far  away  that  even 
their  mighty  expanse  would  be  to  us  mere  points  of  light  too 
small  ordinarily  to  become  perceptible  from  our  far-away 
system,  or  that  they  be  totally  isolated  from  our  own  system 
and  from  one  another  by  the  absence  of  a  light  transmitting 
medium  between  the  systems,  even  that  would  not  invalidate 
our  conclusion,  that  the  universe  must  be  finite.  Even  though 
the  universe  were  so  much  greater  and  more  wonderful  than 
is  apparent  from  our  insignificant  corner  of  it,  and  even  in- 
conceivably greater  than  man's  wonderful  mind  could  grasp 
if  it  were  multiplied  myriad-fold  in  its  powers,  even  then 
such  systems  in  their  aggregate  could  not  be  infinite.  How- 
ever numerous,  separately  mighty  and  widely  separated,  such 
systems,  or  systems  of  systems,  or  universes  within  universes 
of  succeeding  orders,  might  be,  together  constituting  what 
would  then  have  to  be  called  the  universe^  even  these  could  not 
fill  an  infinity,  any  more  than  they  could  constitute  an  in- 
finite. But,  why  speak  even  of  filling  or  constituting  an 
infinite?  An  infinite  could  no  more  be  spoken  of  as  consti- 
tuted of  parts  than  it  could  be  spoken  of  as  being  filledj  as  an 
infinite  could  surely  never  be  filled. 

Indeed,  the  mass  of  what  we  call  matter  of  such  an  ulterior 
universe  would  still  be  almost  inconceivably  less  in  extent 
than  the  space  it  would  occupy,  as  we  shall  show.  And,  what 
is  equally  to  the  point,  no  number  of  such  system-spaces,  any 
more  than  any  number  of  such  systems  of  stars,  however  many 
and  however  extensive  each  one  might  be,  could  constitute 
an  infinite.  And,  therefore,  our  conclusion  still  stands  se- 
cure; namely,  that  however  great  the  universe  might  be  or 
might  even  be  conceived  as  being,  it  would  still  have  to  be 
finite.     And  thus  we  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion  at  which 


152  .  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

we  arrived  several  times  before  by  different  lines  of  reason- 
ing; namely,  that  the  universe  cannot  be  eternal,  and  that 
therefore  it  must  have  been  created. 

We  have  thus  seen  that  the  physical  universe  must  neces- 
sarily be  finite,  however  inconceivably  vast  might  be  its  mighty 
stretches  of  multitudinous  contiguous  or  vastly  separated  com- 
ponent systems  or  so-called  universes  of  stars.  And,  if  the 
universe  were  thus  vast  beyond  all  human  comprehension,  while 
it  must  yet  remain  finite  and  therefore  a  creature,  who  could 
comprehend  the  greatness  of  its  supreme  Creator!  Indeed, 
as  the  universe  must  thus,  however  conceived,  necessarily  be 
finite,  the  greater,  mightier  and  more  wonderful  it  might  be 
conceived  as  being,  the  more  imperative.  If  that  were  pos- 
sible, would,  in  a  sense,  be  the  need  of  an  absolute  spiritual 
Personality  back  of  it  as  Creator  and  Sustainer.  And  thus 
every  argument  for  an  extension  of  the  universe  on  the  part 
of  some  men  who  would  deny  the  existence  of  its  supreme 
Creator,  is  inadvertently  an  emphasizing  of  the  necessity  of 
His  existence  and,  at  least  in  a  tangible  manner,  a  magnify- 
ing of  His  greatness.  Thus,  the  very  attempts,  on  the  part  of 
such  men,  to  reason  God  out  of  existence,  is  overruled  to  the 
glorifying  of  His  sublime  Being. 

And  yet,  as  we  have  seen  that  that  Creator  must  neces- 
sarily be  eternal  and  absolute,  and  infinite  in  power,  wisdom 
and  all  other  attributes,  such  a  conception  of  Him  as  would 
be  afforded  by  even  such  a  vastly  greater  universe  than  the 
one  we  know,  would  not  be  an  exaggeration  of  His  true  great- 
ness. Indeed,  it  would  no  more  afford  even  a  real  measure 
of  Him  than  any  finite  unit  of  measure  could  be  made  to  be 
the  measure  of  the  infinite  and  eternal,  as  already  seen. 

And,  for  that  matter  we  do  not  altogether  deny  the  possi- 
ble existence  of  such  star-systems  or  so-called  local  universes 
beyond  the  one  known  to  us,  as  we  can  surely  not  measure 
or  set  limits  to  the  possible  creation  of  an  infinite  God.  In- 
deed, we  have  even  assumed  their  possible  existence  elsewhere  in 
this  volume.  And,  to  be  sure,  their  existence  would  only  enhance 
our  wonder  before  such  unspeakable  magnitudes  and  complexi- 
ties of  the  stellar  systems  that  would  thus  constitute  the  ulti- 
mate universe.  And  it  would  naturally  only  enhance  our 
admiration,    and    instinctively    impel    us    to    even    profounder 


Evidence  from  "Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  153 

adoration,  of  its  infinitely  more  wonderful  and  infinitely 
greater  (if  that  were  possible)  Designer  and  Creator  than  we 
had  supposed — whose  existence,  from  these  very  considerations, 
must  be  more  certain  than  that  of  the  universe  itself. 

What,  then,  would  man  be  in  the  presence  of  such  vast 
magnitudes  of  creation  and  before  such  an  infinite  Being! 
His  existence  is  indeed  but  a  point,  both  as  to  space  and  as 
to  time,  in  the  presence  of  the  existence  in  time  and  space  of 
the  mighty  vistas  of  the  wonderful  universe  of  which  he  is  but 
an  infinitesimally  small  part.  And  in  the  presence  of  the 
only  infinite  and  eternal  Being  Who  created  that  universe,  man 
is  as  nothing.  The  Russian  poet  G.  R.  Derzhavin  (1743- 
181 6)  beautifully  and  reverently  expressed  a  comparison  be- 
tween man  and  the  universe  and  their  infinite  Creator  God, 
as  follows: 

"Yes!  as  a  drop  of  water  in  the  sea. 

All  this  magnificence  in  Thee  is  lost; 
What  are  ten  thousand  worlds  compared  to  Thee? 

And  what   am  I,  then?     Heaven's  unnumbered  host, 
Though   multiplied  by  myriads,   and   arrayed 

In  all  the  glory  of  sublimest  thought, 
Is  but  an  atom  in  the  balance,  weighed 

Against  Thy  greatness — is  a  cipher  brought 

Against   infinity!     What   am   I,   then? — Naught!" 

And,  indeed,  if  mere  magnitude  were  the  only  measure  of 
man,  he  would  truly  be  a  totally  negligible  quantity  in  the 
universal  whole  of  existence.  But  there  is  another  element 
that  enters  into  the  measure  of  man's  being,  and  this  gives 
him  a  stature  of  truly  sublime  greatness.  And,  thus,  as  if  to 
correct  the  conception  of  man  as  expressed  in  the  verse  al- 
ready quoted,  in  the  light  of  this  element  that  makes  for  his 
lordship  over  nature,  Derzhavin  continues,  as  follows: 

"Naught! — But  the  effluence  of  Thy  light  divine. 
Pervading  worlds,  hath  reached  my  bosom  too; 
Yes!  in  my  spirit  doth  Thy  Spirit  shine. 

As  shines  the  sunbeam  in  a  drop  of  dew. 
Naught! — but  I  live,  and  on  hope's  pinions  fly 
Eager  toward  Thy  presence;  for  in  Thee 


154  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

I  live,  and  breathe,  and  dwell:  aspiring  high, 
Even  to  the  throne  of  Thy  Divinity. 
I  am,  O  God,  and  surely  Thou  must  be !" 

{Translated  by  Bowring.) 

Thus  man,  in  spite  of  his  apparent  littleness  before  the 
universal  whole  of  creation  and  its  Creator,  is  in  another 
sense  greater  than  the  universe  of  matter  which  he  as  yet  only 
feebly  tries  to  contemplate.  He  is  a  conscious  personality,  in 
faculties  even  more  wonderful  than  his  universe  environment. 
Even  apart  from  the  Scriptural  conception  which  inspired  the 
words  of  the  Russian  poet — of  a  being  with  a  soul  created  in 
the  very  image  of  his  Creator — man's  existence  is  in  a  sense 
even  more  wonderful  than  the  universe.  He  is,  even  after 
the  order  of  nature — as  far  as  our  observation  extends — the 
crown  of  nature,  or,  we  might  say,  nature's  uncrowned  lord. 
In  his  mental  grasp  he  seems  destined  well-nigh  to  hold  the 
universe.  His  mental  and  spiritual  potentialities  who  can 
measure!  What  intellectual  conquests  he  will  yet  make  who 
can  even  conceive!  Suggestive,  indeed,  are  the  following 
words  of  one  whose  appreciation  and  measure  of  man,  al- 
though view^ed  as  a  being  in  ruins,  are  second  to  none,  "What 
a  piece  of  work  is  man!  How  noble  in  reason!  how  infinite 
in  faculty!  in  form  and  moving  how  express  and  admirable! 
in  action  how  like  an  angel!  in  apprehension  how  like  a  god!" 
(Shakespeare:  Hamlet,  Act  H.,   Scene  H.) 

We  shall  now  pass  on  to  the  consideration  of  another 
point  in  our  demonstration  of  the  finiteness  of  the  physical 
universe;  namely,  the  necessary  finiteness  of  its  aggregate 
matter. 

Vn    THE  AGGREGATE  MATTER  OF  THE  UNI- 
VERSE NECESSARILY  FINITE 

The  material  universe,  in  its  last  analysis.  Is,  according  to 
the  prevailing  testimony  of  scientists,  composed  of  infinitesi- 
mal particles,  called  molecules,  atoms,  electrons.  These,  how- 
ever small,  are  nevertheless  integers;  and,  however  many,  their 
number  must  necessarily  be  finite.  There  can  be  no  infinite 
number  of  integers,  for  such  would  be  a  contradiction  in  terms. 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  155 

A  number,  however  great,  always  remains  finite.  So  there 
can  be  no  infinite  aggregate  of  individuals  or  integers,  how- 
ever large  the  individuals  or  integers.  An  integer  or  individual 
(or  any  number  of  them)  times  any  number,  or  number  of 
numbers,  of  them,  can  never  produce  an  infinite.  And  this 
is  as  true  of  stars  or  suns  as  of  atoms  and  electrons,  as  stars 
or  suns  are  themselves  only  aggregations  of  atoms  and  elec- 
trons; and  no  number  of  such  aggregations  of  individual 
atoms  or  electrons  can  constitute  an  infinite  any  more  than  the 
individuals  themselves. 

Furthermore,  if  the  number  of  integers  or  of  the  ultimate 
infinitesimal  particles,  were  infinite,  there  would  be  an  infinity 
of  dififerent  compounds.  And,  in  the  light  of  the  electronic 
division  of  matter,  or  any  further  possible  subdivision,  there 
would  then  also  have  to  be  an  infinite  number  of  the  so-called 
elements.  And  the  same  would  be  true  if  the  divisions  of 
matter  were  infinite,  or  if  matter  were  infinitely  divisible. 
But  this,  again,  would  involve  the  manifest  contradiction  that 
the  infinite  number  of  compounds — or  elements — would  neces- 
sarily have  to  be  less  in  number  than  the  infinitesimal  par- 
ticles that  composed  them.  An  infinite  number  less  than  an- 
other infinite  number  would  not  only  be  a  contradiction,  but 
it  w^ould  be  a  mongrel  absurdity!  And  if  this  number  of 
compounds  or  elements  were  not  infinite,  while  the  number  of 
infinitesimal  particles  were  Infinite,  we  should  have  a  finite 
composed  of  an  infinite  in  combination,  which  would  also 
be  an  absurd  impossibility.  Hence,  the  number  of  infinites- 
imal particles  that  enter  Into  combinations  to  form  the  ma- 
terial universe,  as  also  the  divisions  of  matter,  must  neces- 
sarily be  finite  also  upon  the  basis  of  this  evidence,  and  even 
measurably  limited. 

Again,  If  the  material  universe  were  infinite,  there  would 
have  to  be  an  Infinite  number  of  stars,  as  well  as  an  Infinite 
number  of  electrons  or  ultimate  infinitesimal  components.  Or, 
as  both  their  numbers  would  be  infinite,  there  would  have  to  be 
as  many  stars  as  electrons.  But  this  is  so  manifestly  contrary 
to  fact  that  it  requires  no  argument  to  prove  it  to  be  so.  Hence, 
even  though  there  were  an  Infinite  number  (If  that  were  pos- 
sible) of  infinitesimal  component  particles  in  all  the  stars,  there 
would  necessarily  have  to  be  a  finite  number  of  stars,  as  their 
number  would  be  inconceivably  less  than  that  of  their  com- 


156  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

ponent  particles.  But,  if  the  number  of  stars  is  thus  neces- 
sarily finite,  so  also  must  be  that  of  their  component  infinitesi- 
mal particles,  as  the  constitutive  particles  of  a  finite  can  no 
more  be  infinite  in  number  than  they  can  be  infinite  in  aggre- 
gate mass.  Hence,  the  material  universe  must  be  finite  in 
masSj  in  number  of  stars,  and  also  in  the  aggregate  number  of 
infinitesimal  constitutive  particles.  The  above  reasons,  as  also 
others  given  in  this  volume,  not  only  prove  the  material  uni- 
verse by  nature  to  be  a  finite  entity,  but  they  also  prove  that 
to  assume  it  to  be  infinite  would  involve  contradictory  absurdi- 
ties. Indeed,  a  finite  universe  alone  finds  its  complementary 
counterpart  in  human  reason.  Thus  observed  finite  material 
nature  alone  matches  the  observer's  finite  mind,  with  which  it  is 
in  necessary  correlation;  and  both  must  therefore  be  the  neces- 
sarily finite  creatures  of  the  same  transcendent  infinite  creative 
Mind,  or  Spiritual  Personality. 

It  is  true  that  we  cannot  conceive  of  a  number  above  which 
no  other  number  could  be  conceived,  nor  any  space  or  magni- 
tude beyond  which  no  other  space  or  greater  magnitude  might 
be  imagined.  Nor  can  we  conceive  of  any  divisions  of  space 
or  number  bej^ond  which  no  other  divisions  might  be  conceived 
as  possible.  But  to  say  that  this  mental  concept  of  possible 
space  or  magnitude  and  number  is  necessarily  a  proof  that 
these  must  therefore  in  themselves  be  unlimited  or  infinite, 
is  far  from  proving  them  to  be  so,  as  already  indicated.  Thus, 
in  the  old  problem  in  so-called  Infinite  Series,  "If  a  crab  should 
crawl  half  the  distance  back  to  his  pond  in  one  hour,  and 
half  the  remaining  distance  the  second  hour,  and  half  the 
distance  still  remaining  the  third  hour,  etc.,  would  he  ever 
get  there  and  when?"  surely  no  one  would  be  ready  to  de- 
clare that,  as  a  practical  fact,  he  would  never  get  back.  And 
yet,  theoretically  one  might  contend  that  one-half  of  the  re- 
maining distance  would  forever  remain.  And,  indeed,  the- 
oretically one  might  almost  go  to  the  extent  of  contending  that, 
as  there  would  be  apparently  an  infinite  number  of  these  suc- 
cessive halves,  their  sum,  or  the  entire  distance  back  to  the 
pond,  would  itself  be  infinite.  Thus,  theory  must  not  be 
stretched  to  the  absolute  nullifying  of  facts.  And,  in  the 
light  of  what  has  already  been  shown  as  to  the  probable  limits 
of  the  physical  universe,  our  cumulative  proof  for  its  finiteness 
makes    that    finiteness    practically    a   physically    verified    fact. 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  157 

Moreover,  to  try  to  explain  away  space,  as  well  as  time,  as 
only  subjective  conceptions,  and  therefore  only  appearances,  as 
was  attempted  by  Kant,  is  to  do  so  in  the  face  of  that  other 
source  of  knowledge;  namely,  experience.  Though  we  know 
space  only  by  relations,  those  very  relations  necessitate  its 
postulation.     But  more  of  this  later. 

We  have  now  considered  the  extent  of  matter  as  an  entity 
by  itself,  and  have  shown  that,  by  its  very  nature,  it  must  be 
finite  in  quantity.  Nor  does  the  extent  of  space  directly  con- 
cern us  in  this  connection.  As  far  as  it  affects  matter,  space 
might  be  either  finite  or  infinite.  But  when  we  compare  the 
extent  of  matter  with  that  of  space,  it  will  become  at  once 
very  apparent  that  matter  at  least  must  be  finite.  Indeed, 
the  very  fact  that  matter  occupies  space,  proves  it  to  be  less 
in  extent  than  space,  whether  space  be  regarded  as  finite  or 
as  infinite.  And  thus,  if  space  be  finite,  it  should  need  no 
proof  that  matter  must  be  finite,  as  its  extent  must  be  even 
less  than  that  of  space.  And,  for  that  matter,  even  if  space 
were  infinite,  matter  would  have  to  be  finite,  as  otherwise  we 
should  have  two  infinite  extensions,  one  of  which  would  be 
less  than  the  other — a  manifest  impossibility  or  even  absurdity. 
But,  for  the  present,  we  shall  not  assign  limits  to  space,  so 
that  our  argument  for  the  finlteness  of  matter  may  not  even  be 
open  to  any  objection  along  this  line. 

It  seems  somewhat  strange  that  even  some  otherwise  clear 
thinkers  apparently  overlook,  or  Ignore,  the  manifest  contra- 
diction betw^een  the  conception  of  Infinite  space  and  that  of 
an  infinite  quantity  of  matter  or  of  an  infinite  number  of  stars 
or  systems.  And  yet,  unqualified  contradictory  statements  as 
to  these  two  entities  are  very  frequently  met  with,  in  the 
writings  of  men  who  hold  to  the  theory  of  an  Infinite  and 
eternal  universe.  In  quite  a  recent  work,  after  giving  an 
elaborate  argument  for  an  Infinite  universe,  with  an  unlim- 
ited number  or  an  infinite  distribution  of  stars  throughout 
Infinite  space,  the  writer  closes  his  chapter  on  the  Extent  of 
the  Physical  Universe  with  the  following  words:  "The  writer 
has  deemed  it  necessary  to  make  this  brief  review  of  the  evi- 
dential facts  in  favor  of  the  view  that  there  is  no  limit  to  the 
distribution  of  the  stars  through  space,  because  it  Is  upon  the 
assumption  that  there  is  such  an  unlimited  distribution,  that 


158  Creation  Ex  Nihil 0 

the  hypothesis  for  the  genesis  of  matter,  which  he  proposes  to 
present,  is  predicated"  (Ervvin:  The  Universe  and  the  Atom, 
pp.  1 21-122).  And  yet,  this  author  takes  up  at  the  very  be- 
ginning of  the  next  chapter,  the  discussion  of  space  and  mat- 
ter within  the  bounds  of  our  solar  system,  saying  that  the 
space  of  our  solar  system  ''would  be  174,000  [which  should 
be  174,000,000,000]  times  greater  than"  the  volume  of  its 
matter. 

An  unlimited  number  of  stars,  or  an  infinite  distribution 
through  infinite  space!  How  could  there  be  a  distribution  of 
an  unlimited  or  an  infinite  within  an  infinite.  How  could 
there  thus  be  two  infinites,  the  one  almost  infinitesimally 
smaller  than  the  other!  Moreover,  if  matter  and  space  were 
both  infinite,  they  would  even  be  mutually  exclusive — either 
all  empty  space  or  all  space-filling  matter.  At  any  rate,  a 
theory  according  to  which  an  unlimited  number  of  stars,  or 
an  infinite  quantity  of  matter,  would  supposedly  be  distributed 
through  an  infinite  space,  must  surely  imply  a  strange  concep- 
tion of  what  constitutes  an  infinite! 


We  have  just  stated  that  the  conception  of  an  unlimited 
number  of  stars — or  an  infinite  mass  of  matter — distributed 
throughout  an  infinite  space,  would  mean  the  placing  of  an 
infinite  luithin  another  infinite.  And  yet,  that  contained  sup- 
posed infinite  would  then  be  almost  infinitesimally  smaller  than 
the  containing  infinite. 

Let  us  now  go  back  to  our  conception  of  the  universe  as 
composed  of  concentric  spheres  around  our  sun,  and  let  us 
consider  the  average  density  of  distribution  of  the  stars  to 
be  such  that  a  space  equivalent  to  that  of  a  sphere  with  a 
radius  of  300,000  times  the  distance  of  our  sun  from  us,  or 
27,900,000,000,000  (279X10^^)  miles,  would  contain  one 
star.  Let  us  also  regard  the  average  star  to  have  a  radius  of 
500,000   (5X10^)   miles. 

Now,  let  V=the  volume  of  a  single-star  sphere, 

R=the  radius  of  a  single-star  sphere  (279X10^^ 

miles), 
v=the  volume  of  a  star, 
and  r=the  radius  of  a  star   (5X10^  miles). 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  159 

Then,  V  :  V  ::  R3  :  r%- 
or,    r'*V=  R^v. 

R^v. 

Hence       V=— :t — 

J..J 

Substituting  values  of  R  and  1(279X10^^  and  5X10^), 
(279Xio'')'v 
(5Xio^)« 
=  i73,74i,ii2Xio^'v. 

Hence,  the  approximate  average  space  that  is  inhabited  by 
one  star,  upon  the  basis  of  the  uniform  distribution  indicated, 
is  173,741,112,000,000,000,000,000  times  that  of  the  volume 
of  the  star  itself.  This  would,  of  course,  also  be  approximately 
the  number  of  times  the  space  that  constitutes  the  habitation 
of  our  solar  sj^stem  is  greater  than  the  volume  of  our  sun  with 
all  its  planets.  It  is  thus  readily  seen,  upon  the  basis  of  the 
approximately  determined  distribution  of  the  stars,  and  allow- 
ing for  a  good  size  for  a  star,  that  the  universe  of  space  for 
our  whole  galactic  system  would  be  173,741,112  X  10^^  times 
the  volume  of  the  condensed  universe  of  ponderable  matter. 
And  this  assumes  even  that  such  average  distribution  of  stars 
continues  as  far  as  their  bounding  space,  which  is  contrary  to 
fact,  as  already  noted.  How  much  more  vastly  greater,  there- 
fore, the  space  itself  of  the  known  universe  is  than  the  mat- 
ter it  actually  contains,  it  would  be  difficult  to  estimate. 
What  vast  volume  of  space  is  thus  unoccupied  by  ponderable 
matter! 

What  vaster  volume  of  space  would  that  then  have  to  be 
that  could  contain  as  many  stars,  upon  the  same  basis  of  dis- 
tribution j  as  would  be  equal  to  the  number  necessary  to  cover 
every  point  of  the  ulterior  sphere  of  stars  and  cause  all  heaven 
to  blaze  with  light  like  that  of  a  solid  sun-studded  globe! 
However,  that  space  would  also  be  173,741,112  X  10^^  times 
as  large  as  the  space  occupied  by  the  aggregate  mass  of  all 
the  stars.  But  even  this  imaginary  universe-space  would  still 
be  finite.  Then,  surely,  again  we  say,  if  the  universe-space 
inhabited  by  stars,  however  numerous  and  far  extended,  must 
be  inconceivably  greater  than  the  mass  of  all  the  stars,  and 
yet  is  not  infinite,  much  less  so  could  the  number  and  aggre- 
gate mass  of  all  its  contained  stars  be  infinite. 


l6o  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

And,  of  course,  upon  the  supposition  of  an  indefinite  num- 
ber of  mighty  star-systems  beyond  our  own  galactic  system — 
if  such  existed — the  relative  difference  between  the  mass  of 
the  combined  systems  and  the  continuous  space  occupied  or  in- 
habited by  them  all,  would  be  even  immeasurably  greater  than 
the  relative  difference  between  the  mass  of  our  (or  one)  system 
and  the  space  it  inhabits,  as  determined  above.  For,  upon 
the  very  hypothesis  of  such  existing  systems,  there  would  have 
to  be  vast  stretches  of  void  spaces  between  them,  even  incon- 
ceivably greater  than  that  actually  occupied  or  inhabited  by 
the  relatively  small  multitudinous  systems  of  stars  like  our 
galactic  sj^stem,  which  constitutes  the  known  universe.  And, 
if  the  amount  of  containing  space  of  our  galactic  sj^stem  is 
approximately  173,741,112  X  10^^  times  its  contained  matter, 
how  immeasurably  many  times  relatively  greater  would  the 
containing  space  of  these  supposed  vastly  multiplied,  and  even 
much  more  vastly  separated,  star-systems,  have  to  be  than  the 
aggregate  mass  of  all  the  systems  contained  within  what  would 
then  constitute  the  universal  whole! 

It  should,  therefore,  surely  require  no  further  argument  to 
prove  that — even  though  it  were  granted  that  space  Is  infinite 
— the  number  and  distribution  of  the  stars,  and  therefore  the 
amount  of  their  aggregate  mass,  can  certainly  not  be  Infinite — 
whether  there  be  one  or  many  systems,  or  so-called  universes, 
contiguous  (or  continuous)  as  to  space,  but  enormously  sep- 
arated as  to  unitary  star-systems.  And,  of  course,  upon  the 
basis  of  many  systems,  this  supposed  Infinity  of  mass  would 
relatively  even  be  immeasurably  reduced.  What,  then,  be- 
comes of  the  supposed  infinity!  Matter,  therefore,  is  finite  in 
extent.    How  about  space? 

VIII    THE     EXTENT     OF     THE     CONTAINING 
SPACE  OF  THE  UNIVERSE 

We  are  not  ready  to  concede  that  even  space  is  infinite.  On 
the  contrary,  we  cannot  conceive  of  a  void  in  outer  space. 
Surely,  if  space  were  infinite,  we  might  well  suppose  that,  In 
accordance  with  the  old  adage,  it  would  no  less  abhor  a 
vacuum  beyond  the  stellar  universe  than  within  it.  Here  it 
is  at  least  totally  filled  with  ether — as  every  evidence  indi- 
cates— where  it  is  not  occupied  by  ponderable  matter.     And 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  l6l 

thus  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  beyond  the  universe 
of  stars,  as  far  as  space  extends — if  indeed  it  extends  any  con- 
siderable distance  beyond — all  space  must  also  be  occupied  by 
either  ponderable  matter  or  ether,  or  something  analogous  to 
them.  And,  therefore,  even  if  there  were  ulterior  so-called 
universes,  occupying  a  supposed  continuation  of  space,  the  im- 
mense stretches  of  space  between  our  universe  and  them,  as 
well  as  between  one  another,  would  also  be  thus  occupied. 
Hence,  their  existence  would  have  to  be  manifest  to  us  by  some 
light  transmission,  as  we  have  also  shown  above,  unless  per- 
chance their  history  did  not  extend  backward  over  a  period 
sufficiently  long  for  such  light  transmission.  This  is,  however, 
contrary  to  the  very  contention  of  men  who  hold  to  the  belief 
in  an  infinite  universe,  for  they  as  strongly  affirm  it  also  to  be 
eternal.  And  thus  such  an  argument  for  an  infinite  universe, 
namely,  that  the  light  from  such  supposed  far-off  universes  of 
stars  could  not  yet  have  reached  us,  would  be  tantamount  to 
an  acceptance  of  our  conclusion,  that  the  universe  is  not 
eternal  and  that  it  must  therefore  have  been  created. 

But,  even  if  there  were  any  number  of  such  universes  be- 
yond our  own,  whether  knowable  to  us  or  not,  the  space 
occupied  by  them  would  not  be  infinite,  as  we  have  shown. 
And,  moreover,  if  there  were  any  conceivable  or  inconceiv- 
able stretches  of  ether-filled  space  beyond  the  universe  of  stars, 
or  even  beyond  the  bounds  of  any  succession  or  multiplication 
of  universes,  even  such  stretches  of  space  would  not  be  in- 
finite. For,  such  ether  can  by  nature  not  constitute  an  in- 
finite, because  of  its  necessarily  granular  nature,  as  we  shall 
show  in  our  next  chapter;  and,  therefore,  the  space  it  would 
occupy  could  also  not  be  infinite.  Hence,  it  must  follow  also 
that  even  such  ether-filled  space  beyond  all  possible  universes 
of  stars  or  matter,  together  with  the  space  occupied  by  such 
universes  of  matter,  could  not  together  constitute  an^  infinite 
entity.  As  such  totality  of  space  would  yet  be  filled  with  mat- 
ter and  ether  together,  and  as  neither  matter  nor  ether  can 
be  infinite,  so  space  as  occupied  by  them  cannot  be  infinite. 
Surely,  two  finites  cannot  together  constitute  an  infinite. 

But  it  may  be  contended  that  we  have  ignored  the  vast 
aggregate  of  the  interspaces  between  the  particles  of  the  ether 
that  pervades  the  universal  whole  of  space.  To  this  we  can 
calmly  reply  that  this  would  not  alter  the  above  conclusion, 


1 63  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

as  the  aggregate  of  these  Interspaces  must  also  be  finite.  This 
finite  aggregate  of  supposedly  unoccupied  Interspaces  between 
the  ultimate  particles  of  the  universal  ether,  would  only  add  a 
third  element  In  the  totality  of  space,  which  would  then  have 
to  be  conceived  of  as  occupied  by,  or  made  up  of,  the  finite 
space  occupied  by  the  aggregate  of  ponderable  matter,  the  finite 
space  occupied  by  the  aggregate  of  the  ether  particles  and  the 
finite  aggregate  of  Interspaces  between  the  ultimate  particles  of 
the  ether.  And,  hence,  the  totality  of  space  would  yet  remain 
finite,  as  no  three  finltes  can  constitute  an  Infinite.  And  this, 
again,  conversely,  should  be  an  added  proof  that  neither  mat- 
ter nor  the  ether  nor  the  Interspaces  between  the  ultimate 
ether  particles  can  alone  be  Infinite,  as  they  together  occupy 
space.  And  this  would  even  be  true  If  space  Itself  were 
actually  Infinite,  as  any  one  of  them  must  necessarily  be  less 
in  extent  than  the  space  they  together  occupy. 

After  all,  however,  as  elsewhere  noted,  space  is  not  Itself 
an  Independent  separate  entity;  but  It  Is  rather  the  expressed 
relation  between  material  bodies.  And,  as  for  spirit  or  mind, 
to  such  there  can  be  no  space  occupancy  or  space  relation,  such 
as  we  speak  of  with  reference  to  matter.  But,-  even  regarding 
space  as  an  existing  separate  reality,  would  It,  even,  considered 
apart  from  matter  and  ether,  necessarily  have  to  be  Infinite? 
Thus,  even  if  space  thus  conceived  extended  Indefinitely  be- 
yond the  universe  of  stars,  or  even  beyond  the  supposed  all- 
comprehensive  universe  of  universes,  all  beyond  unfilled  with 
either  matter  or  ether,  or  even  anything  analogous  to  them — 
If  such  were  conceivable,  or,  for  that  matter,  If  such  were  In- 
conceivable— could  even  such  ^A:/r^-unIverse  space  added  to 
the  aggregate  universe-space  be  Infinite?  Even  the  argument 
above  would  here  also  in  Its  essential  elements  be  applicable, 
that  such  aggregate  space  would  have  to  be  finite.  It  Is  Indeed 
true  that  we  cannot  conceive  of  It  as  having  an  end.  But, 
then,  no  more  can  we  conceive  of  it  as  having  no  end.  And, 
for  that  matter,  our  conception  of  space,  or  our  ability  or  In- 
ability to  conceive  of  it  either  as  ending  or  as  not  ending, 
does  In  no  way  affect  or  determine  the  reality  or  truth  of  this 
matter. 

The  old  Euclidean  conception  of  an  absolutely  three-dimen- 
sional space  has  for  a  long  time  been  called  In  question.  Our 
minds  are  so  constituted  that,   for  our  thinking,  three-dlmen- 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  163 

sional  space  seems  to  be  a  necessity.  But,  then,  does  that  limit 
space  to  these  dimensions?  Are  not  our  minds  correlated  to 
the  part  of  nature  in  which  they  operate,  and  may  not  this 
part  of  nature  but  faintly  illustrate  nature's  greater  and  far 
more  complex  whole?  As,  to  a  man  without  the  sense  of 
sight  there  would  be  no  light  and  no  color,  and  to  a  man 
without  the  sense  of  hearing  there  would  be  no  sound,  so  to 
any  being  without  the  corresponding  sense-organs  there  would 
in  so  far  be  no  physical  environment.  Thus,  the  environ- 
ment is  known  in  a  natural  way  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  met 
by  the  necessary  attuned  or  adjusted  sense-organs.  And,  as 
these  physical  sense-organs  must  necessarily  be  matched  by 
their  counterpart  in  nature,  so  must  they  be  adapted  also  only 
to  their  locus  in  nature.  And,  where  there  are  realities  that 
do  not  constitute,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  locus  of  our 
sense-organs — or  to  which  these  are  not  adjusted  or  attuned — 
these  realities  upon  a  merely  natural  plane  of  contact — if  in- 
deed there  could  be  such — would,  for  a  person  without  these 
necessary  organs  or  senses  of  apprehension  for  such  to  him 
transcendental  realities,  have  no  existence. 

Moreover,  who  can  deny  the  existence  of  space-dimensions, 
or  other  space-realities,  other  than  those  for  which  our  phys- 
ical sensorium  has  senses  of  apprehension,  because  not  neces- 
sary for  our  existence  and  activity  in  the  little  confines  of 
nature  in  which  we  have  our  present  natural  transcient  being? 
And,  of  course,  where  there  are  no  senses  of  apprehension, 
there  can  be  no  experience  or  contact  with  such  transcendental 
realities.  And,  where  there  is  no  experience,  there  can  not 
even  be  a  consciousness  of  them.  And,  where  experience, 
and  through  it  consciousness,  can  afford  us  no  data  for  such 
realities,  there  even  the  true  conception  or  imagination  of  such 
realities  would  by  nature  be  impossible,  as  even  these  ulti- 
mately go  back  to  experience.  Hence,  such  realities  of  space- 
dimensions,  if  they  do  exist,  can  have  no  natural  existence  as 
far  as  we  are  concerned. 

Moreover,  as  Jules  Henri  Poincare  so  suggestively  pointed 
out  in  his  two  works.  Science  and  Hypothesis  (1905)  and  The 
Foundations  of  Science  (1913),  there  is  a  real  sense  in  which 
even  the  axioms  of  geometry  are  only  conventions  for  prac- 
tical use.  He  showed  that  Euclidean  geometry  is  no  more 
absolutely   true    than   any   of    the   non-Euclidean   systems   of 


164  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

geometry,  but  that  it  is  the  one  in  practical  use  because  it  is 
better  adapted  to  us  in  our  present  physical  environment. 
Thus,  Euclidean  geometry  best  fits  in  with  developed  human 
experience.  By  this,  the  great  French  mathematician  implied 
that  ancestral  experience  might  have  been  such  as  to  have 
made  present  human  experience  equally  fitted  to  some  other 
system.  And,  indeed,  he  contended  that  it  is  quite  possible  to 
conceive  of  a  world  so  constructed  or  constituted  that  Eu- 
clidean geometry  would  not  be  the  simplest  and  most  advan- 
tageous. Thus,  an  indefinite  number  of  logical  and  self-con- 
sistent systems  of  geometry  have  been  shown  by  Reiman  and 
others  to  be  possible,  as  also  altogether  different  conceptions  of 
space  and  space-relations. 

Among  other  eminent  men  of  science  who  were  inclined  to 
accept  the  possibility  of  a  multidimensional  space  was  the 
astronomer  Simon  Newcomb.  In  discussing  some  of  the  con- 
clusions of  non-Euclidean  geometry,  he  makes  the  following 
statement:  "Although  two  straight  lines,  when  continued  in- 
definitely, do  not  appear  to  converge  even  at  the  immense  dis- 
tances which  separate  us  from  the  fixed  stars,  it  is  possible 
that  there  may  be  a  point  at  which  they  would  eventually  meet 
without  either  line  having  deviated  from  its  primitive  direc- 
tion as  we  understand  the  case.  It  would  follow  that,  if  we 
could  start  out  from  the  earth  and  fly  through  space  in  a 
perfectly  straight  line  with  a  velocity  perhaps  millions  of  times 
that  of  light,  we  might  at  length  find  ourselves  approaching 
the  earth  from  a  direction  the  opposite  of  that  in  which  we 
started.  Our  straight-line  circle  would  be  complete.  Another 
result  of  the  theory  is  that,  if  it  be  true,  space,  though  still 
unbounded,  is  not  infinite,  just  as  the  surface  of  a  sphere, 
though  without  any  edge  or  boundary,  has  only  a  limited 
extent  of  surface"  {Side-Lights  of  Astronomy,  p.  I59)-  He 
then  proceeds  to  show  that,  according  to  this  theory,  if  the 
earth  were  conceived  of  as  growing  larger  and  larger  in  all 
directions  with  a  velocity  millions  of  times  that  of  light,  it 
would  at  length  fill  all  existing  space,  as  it  would  be  closing 
in  upon  and  meeting  itself — which  would,  of  course,  have  to 
be  true  of  it  on  all  sides. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  astronomer  Sir  Robert  Ball 
came  to  similar  conclusions.  His  statement  upon  this  point 
is  as  follows:     "I  may  .  .  .  say  that  it  can  be  demonstrated 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  165 

that  all  known  facts  about  space  are  reconcilable  with  the 
supposition  that  if  we  follow  a  straight  line  through  space — 
using  for  the  word  straight  the  definition  which  science  has 
shown  properly  to  belong  to  it — then,  after  a  journey  which 
is  not  infinite  in  Its  length,  we  shall  find  ourselves  back  at 
the  point  from  which  we  started"  {In  the  High  Heavens,  p. 
250).  Again,  he  says:  "Space  is  thus  clearly  finite;  for  a 
particle  travelling  in  a  straight  line  with  uniform  speed  in 
the  same  direction  is  never  able  to  get  beyond  a  certain  lim- 
ited distance  from  the  original  position,  to  which  it  will  every 
now  and  then  return"   {Ibid.,  p.  251). 

Our  point  here,  then,  is,  that  if  the  principles  of  hyper- 
geometry,  or  so-called  non-Euclidean  geometry,  are  true — and 
surely  they  cannot  positively  be  disproved — then  our  conclu- 
sion that  space  is  finite,  and  therefore  all  the  more  so  also 
that  the  universe  of  matter  is  finite,  must  stand.  One  of  the 
deductions  from  multidimensional  space  is,  of  course,  that  such 
space  itself  is  finite. 

But,  even  if  the  three-dimensional  space  were  the  only 
space-reality,  even  that  would  not  necessarily  make  space  in- 
finite. And,  of  course,  whatever  theory  of  space  we  adopt, 
the  universe  of  matter,  as  already  shown,  is  necessarily,  and 
only  too  evidently,  finite.  Space  can  be  conceived  of  as  added 
and  subtracted,  divided  and  multiplied,  as  having  a  before  and 
an  after,  as  divided  into  concentric  spheres — as  we  have  done 
for  the  presentation  of  some  of  our  proofs  for  a  finite  uni- 
verse. And  reason  would  demand  that  any  such  entity  can- 
not be  infinite.  That  which  can  be  added  and  subtracted, 
multiplied  and  divided,  cannot  be  infinite;  for,  as  already 
seen,  no  addition  or  multiplication  of  parts  can  make  up  an 
infinite.  Nor  can  an  infinite  be  subtracted  or  divided;  for, 
if  so,  each  part,  as  it  would  necessarily  have  to  be  less  than 
the  whole,  must  be  less  than  infinite.  And  thus,  after  such 
division,  we  should  have  left  a  number  of  finite  parts  which 
together  would  supposedly  constitute  an  infinite.  This,  of 
course,  is  impossible,  or  contrary  to  ascertainable  fact  or  truth. 
And  this  reasoning  would,  of  course,  apply  to  the  universe  as 
divided  into  concentric  spheres,  as  we  conceived  of  it.  Indeed, 
w^hat  can  truly  be  conceived  of  as  divisible  or  subtractible  can- 
not be  infinite;  for  no  number  of  such  conceivable  divisions  or 
subtractions  can  constitute  an  infinite. 


1 66  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

Thus,  if  space  were  conceived  of  as  infinite,  we  should  have 
an  infinite  number  of  its  parts,  which  is  impossible;  or  an  in- 
finite before  and  an  infinite  behindj  an  infinite  above  and  an 
infinite  below,  thus  multiplying  infinites,  which  would  be  con- 
tradictory. Hence,  even  containing  space  is  no  more  infinite 
than  is  contained  matter.  Indeed,  the  very  nature  of  relation 
between  material  body  and  material  body,  no  less  than  the  very 
nature  of  materiality,  is  itself  a  definite  proof  of  finiteness. 
Therefore,  the  physical  universe  of  both  space  and  matter,  no 
less  than  matter  or  space  considered  separately  and  alone, 
is  finite. 

Thus,  as  we  believe  we  have  proved  in  this  and  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  the  physical  universe  is  a  finite  and  dependent 
entity,  as  indeed  no  physical  entity  could  be  infinite  and  abso- 
lute. And,  for  that  matter,  finiteness  and  dependence  are 
necessary  correlates,  so  related  that  the  one,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  implies  or  involves  the  other.  Thus,  what  is  finite 
must  be  dependent,  and  what  is  dependent  must  be  finite.  And 
as  the  physical  universe  is  finite  and  dependent,  it  cannot  be 
self-existent  and  absolute.  Hence,  it  must  necessarily  have 
been  brought  into  existence  by  a  preexistent  cause,  and  can 
therefore  not  be  eternal. 

Some  entity  must,  however,  necessarily  be  eternal  and  self- 
existent;  and  indeed  only  an  eternal  entity  can  be  self-existent 
or  uncreated.  Hence,  such  a  self-existent,  or  uncreated,  and 
eternal  entity  must  have  existed  before  the  universe.  And  an 
eternal  and  self-existent  entity  must  of  necessity  also  be  in- 
finite and  absolute.  And  only  such  an  infinite,  absolute, 
eternal,  and  therefore  necessarily  self-existent,  entity  could  be 
an  omnipotent  cause.  And  as,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
there  could  be  only  one  such  entity  or  omnipotent  cause,  that 
alone  could  have  been  the  ultimate  creative  cause  of  all  other 
existence,  and  therefore  of  the  physical  universe.  And  that 
absolute,  eternal,  infinite,  self-existent  and  omnipotent  cause 
that  created  it,  with  all  its  potentialities,  must  necessarily  thus 
either  directly,  or  indirectly  through  the  agency  of  those  im- 
posed potentialities,  still  sustain  it. 

But,  for  reasons  already  cited,  such  a  cause  could  not  be  a 
material  or  physical  entity,  as  a  material  or  physical  entity, 
as  also  conclusively  proved,  would  necessarily  have  to  be  finite. 


Evidence  from  Nature  as  a  Cosmic  Whole  167 

and  could  therefore  not  be  self-existent,  eternal  and  absolute. 
Hence,  such  an  omnipotent  cause  must  necessarily  be  an  Im- 
material, or  what  we  call  a  spiritual^  entity.  And,  indeed,  to 
such  a  spiritual  entity  alone  there  can  be  no  before  and  no 
behind,  etc.,  as,  for  that  matter,  no  space  relations  whatsoever. 
A  spiritual  entity  alone  is  indivisible. 

And,  moreover,  as  will  even  more  clearly  appear  In  the  later 
chapters,  that  infinite,  eternal,  absolute,  self-existent  and  omnip- 
otent spiritual  entity  that  is  the  ultimate  cause  of  the  physical 
universe — which  is  the  same  as  saying,  the  one  and  only  Su- 
preme Being — corresponds  to  God  the  Creator  and  Sustainer  of 
all  things,  revealed  In  the  Scriptures.  And  Him  therefore 
both  the  man  of  science  and  the  man  of  faith  alike  should 
worship.  And,  as  that  Infinite  creative  cause  revealed  in 
nature  and  the  God  of  the  Scriptures  are  one,  so  ought  also 
the  man  of  science  be  a  man  of  faith. 

It  can,  therefore,  truly  be  said,  as  will  become  even  more 
apparent  from  what  is  to  follow,  that  the  unanswerable  testi- 
mony of  science,  instead  of  making  against  a  supreme  creative 
Deity,  really  establishes  the  necessity  of  His  existence.  In  the 
words  of  the  eminent  man  of  science  and  Christian  apologist,  Dr. 
G.  Frederick  Wright,  as  found  in  his  discussion  on  Genesis  and 
Science,  "From  every  quarter,  unexpected  light  is  breaking  in 
upon  us  from  apparent  darkness.  The  strength  of  the  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  the  historical  statements  in  the  Bible  is,  there- 
fore, not  diminished,  but  rather  is  increased,  by  modern  scien- 
tific investigation"  {Scientific  Confirmations  of  Old  Testament 
History,  1906,  p.  385).  There  is  thus  a  real  sense  in  which 
established  science  is  the  unconscious  handmaid  of  religion.  But 
without  further  anticipating  our  later  and  fuller  discussion  upon 
this  point,  we  shall  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  additional 
evidence;  namely,  that  from  the  physically  temporal  nature  of 
the  universe. 


CHAPTER  VI 

EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  PHYSICALLY  TEMPORAL 
NATURE  OF  THE  UNIVERSE  THAT  IT  HAD 
A  BEGINNING  AND  THEREFORE  THAT  IT 
WAS  CREATED 

In  the  last  two  chapters  we  showed,  from  the  Inherent  de- 
pendence of  the  material  universe,  in  part  and  in  whole,  and 
from  its  very  nature  as  an  aggregate  of  individuals  and  as  a 
cosmic  whole,  that  it  must  be  finite  and  therefore  temporal, 
and  therefore  that  it  must  also  be  a  creature.  We  shall  now 
proceed  to  show  also  from  its  nature  as  a  cosmic  unity  of 
gradually  declining  forces,  that  it  is  not  an  eternal  existence. 
The  establishing  of  this  fact  will  still  further  add  to  the  un- 
answerable cumulative  evidence  that  the  physical  universe  is 
not  self-existent,  and  that  it  must  therefore  have  been  created 
in  time  out  of  nothing. 

I    A    UNIVERSAL    PARALYSIS    IN    NATURE    IM- 
PENDING 

As  science  attaches  great  importance  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
so-called  dissipation  of  energy,  amid  its  correlation  and  ap- 
parent conservation,  let  us  see  how  this  scientific  doctrine 
throws  light  upon  our  subject. 

I       APPARENT    DISSIPATION    OF     ENERGY    AND    ITS    INEVITABLE 

RESULT 

It  Is  now  generally  held  by  scientists  that  all  forms  of 
energy  have  a  tendency  to  be  converted  into  heat,  and  that  this 
heat,  either  directly  or  indirectly  through  applied  power  or 
work,  is  as  constantly  radiated  into  space,  and  is  therefore  ap- 
parently lost.  Clauslus,  in  his  mechanical  theory  of  heat 
given  to  the  world  in  1850,  considered  this  radiated  and  dis- 

168 


Evidence  from  Temporal  Nature  of  Universe  169 

tributed  heat  energy  as  turned  inward,  which  suggested  to  him 
the  name  entropy.  As  this  tends  toward  a  maximum,  real 
energy,  or  energy  available  for  further  work,  as  we  know  it, 
would  reciprocally  tend  to  cease.  Thus,  as  the  total  heat  in 
the  solar  system  is  necessarily  finite,  it  must  finally  become 
wholly  equalized  or  apparently  lost.  And,  therefore,  the  sun 
itself  must  grow  dim  with  age  until  it  will  be  extinguished  in 
endless  night,  while  all  life  and  motion  must  end  in  irrev- 
ocable stagnation  and  death. 

And,  what  is  true  as  to  our  solar  system  must  necessarily 
be  true  as  to  any  other  system,  because  all  are  finite.  And, 
as  the  total  heat  in  each  finite  system  is  finite,  the  sum  total 
of  the  heat  of  all  systems  must  also  be  finite.  As  already 
shown,  no  number  of  finites,  either  of  systems  or  of  their 
quantities  of  heat,  can  constitute  an  infinite.  Thus,  what  is 
true  of  our  solar  system  and  of  every  other  system,  must  also, 
by  interstellar  radiation  and  apparent  dissipation,  be  true  of 
the  universal  whole.  It,  too,  after  countless  ages  of  dissipa- 
tion and  equalization  of  cosmic  energy,  must  end  in  irrev- 
ocable paralysis  and  death. 

The  inevitable  result  of  this  dissipation  and  equalization 
of  energy  is  acknowledged  even  by  many  scientists  who  never- 
theless hold  to  the  theory  of  an  eternal  universe.  Svante 
Arrhenius,  in  order  to  escape  this  altogether  natural  conclu- 
sion as  to  the  end  of  the  present  order  of  nature,  however, 
suggests  his  theory  of  the  degradation  and  elevation  of  the 
supposedly  ever  divided  energy  of  the  universe,  as  follows: 
"The  way  out  of  this  difficulty  which  I  propose  comes  to 
this:  the  energy  is  'degraded'  in  bodies  which  are  in  the  solar 
state,  and  the  energy  is  'elevated,'  raised  to  a  higher  level,  in 
bodies  which  are  in  the  nebular  state"  {Worlds  in  the  Mak- 
ing.  Preface,  p.  XIII). 

That  this  is  only  an  assumption,  need  not  be  emphasized. 
Moreover,  in  what:  follows  will  be  seen  its  total  invalidity  as 
an  argument  for  an  eternal  and  uncreated  universe. 

We  are,  of  course,  reminded,  that,  according  to  the  law 
of  conservation  of  energy,  no  energy  is  supposed  to  be  really 
lost.  The  apparently  lost  energy  is  supposedly  only  being 
transmuted  into  heat;  and  as  heat  it  will  presumably  still  be 
equivalent  to  the  sum  of  all  the  forms  of  energy  thus  trans- 
muted.    It  will  supposedly  still  theoretically  exist  as  energy; 


170  Creation  Ex  Nihtlo 

but  it  will  be  dissipated  for  further  work,  as  far  as  can  be 
known.  In  quantity,  it  is  held,  it  will  still  be  the  same,  but 
only  in  serviceability  or  availability  will  it  supposedly  have  van- 
ished. 

And  yet,  even  this  would  nevertheless  mark  the  end  of  at 
least  the  present  physical  order,  when,  like  a  mighty  clock- 
work, it  will  have  come  to  a  final  stop  upon  being  run  down 
— from  which,  according  to  the  law  of  inertia,  it  can  not 
start  nor  rewind  itself.  And  also  as  to  the  universal  whole 
must  this  be  true.  When  all  the  higher  available  forms  of 
energy  will  have  been  transmuted  into  the  lower  or  unavailable 
forms,  there  will  be  no  energy  left  available  to  retransmute 
this  at  least  apparently  lost  energy  back  into  actual  or  avail- 
able energy  again. 

This  important  truth  was  apparently  clearly  seen  by  Peter 
Guthrie  Tait — an  authority  on  the  conservation  of  energy — 
as  is  evident  from  the  following  words:  "Thus  the  energy 
of  the  universe  is,  on  the  whole,  constantly  passing  from 
higher  to  lower  forms,  and  therefore  the  possibility  of  trans- 
formation is  becoming  smaller  and  smaller,  so  that  after  the 
lapse  of  sufficient  time  all  higher  forms  of  energy  must  have 
passed  from  the  physical  universe,  and  we  can  imagine  nothing 
as  remaining,  except  those  lower  forms  which  are  incapable,  so 
far  as  we  yet  know,  of  any  further  transformation"  {Recent 
Advances  in  Science j  p.  20) . 

Even  Herbert  Spencer  could  not  avoid  reaching  practically 
the  same  conclusion.  His  words,  in  virtual  accord  with  those 
of  Tait  just  quoted,  have  therefore  also  considerable  weight, 
as  further  strengthening  our  point.  He  expressed  this  prob- 
ability of  an  end  to  the  present  physical  order,  as  follows: 
"In  all  cases,  then,  there  is  progress  toward  equilibrium.  That 
universal  co-existence  of  antagonist  forces  which,  as  we  before 
saw,  necessitates  the  universality  of  rhythm,  and  which,  as 
we  before  saw,  necessitates  the  decomposition  of  every  force 
into  divergent  forces,  at  the  same  time  necessitates  the  ultimate 
establishment  of  a  balance.  Every  motion,  being  motion  under 
resistance,  is  continually  suffering  deductions;  and  these  un- 
ceasing deductions  finally  result  in  the  cessation  of  the  mo- 
tion" {First  Principles,  p.  447)-  And  on  page  471  of  the 
same  work  he  definitely  declares  that  the  fact  that  the  end 
of   all   transformation   must   result   in   quiescence,    "admits   of 


Evidence  from  Temporal  Nature  of  Universe  171 

a  priori  proof." 

Moreover,  even  if  this  apparently  lost  energy  should  be 
regarded  as  the  resultant  of  the  ultimate  transmutation  of  all 
kinetic  energy  into  potential  energy,  it  might  with  consider- 
able suggestiveness  be  asked,  With  reference  to  what  would 
that  potentiality  be?  This  would  necessarily  suggest  an  in- 
finite and  absolute  entity  outside  the  physical  universe.  But, 
for  all  we  know,  the  law  of  conservation  may  here  break 
down,  the^kinetic  energy  being  perhaps  in  part  at  least  used  up 
m  "work,"  instead  of  being  converted  or  transmuted  without 
loss.  This  would,  of  course,  mean  temporality.  Indeed,  some 
phenomena  of  radioactive  substances  leave  virtually  no  room 
for  doubt  that  this  is  the  case.  Of  this  we  shall,  however, 
speak  later. 

2      THIS     CONCLUSION     NOT     ALTERED     BY     THE     THEORY     OF 
STELLAR    CONSOLIDATIONS 

It  has  even  been  held  by  a  limited  number  of  men  of 
science  that  not  only  is  the  energy  being  equalized  by  radia- 
tion, and  therefore  practically  dissipated,  but  that  even  the 
whole  material  universe  tends  in  the  course  of  countless  ages 
towards  consolidation.  Thus,  the  earth  and  other  planets  are 
supposed  to  be  imperceptibly  retarded  in  their  velocities 
around  the  sun,  by  friction  in  the  ether,  or  by  some  other 
cause  of  some  loss  of  energy  in  the  revolution,  so  that  they 
are  spirally  approaching  the  sun,  for  further  fuel,  dissipation 
of  heat  and  final  reconsolidation.  So,  also,  similarly  con- 
solidated systems  are  supposed  to  be  drawn  toward  other 
systems,  until  the  whole  starry  universe  will  have  been  con- 
solidated and  its  available  energ}^  for  the  time  at  least, 
equalized  or  stilled.  However,  during  the  process  of  recon- 
centration  of  suns  and  systems,  their  successive  collisions,  it  is 
also  contended,  are  converted  into  heat  for  further  radiation 
and  for  the  development  of  other  successive  local  universes, 
according  to  the  nebular  theory. 

Of  course,  we  need  hardly  say  that  this  is  only  theory,  for 
which  we  cannot  expect  any  proof  in  our  present  limited  state 
and  environment.  Whatever  data  are  supposed  to  be  afforded 
by  the  researches  of  physical  astronomy  or  astronomical 
physics,  are  after  all  only  isolated  facts,   for  which  we  may 


172  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

not  yet  have  any  reliable  interpretation  at  all.  Moreover, 
after  once  the  available  energy  of  the  universe  would  be  equal- 
ized or  stilled,  if  left  to  itself,  the  universe  could  not  begin 
a  new  cycle  of  existence  and  operation.  Then,  according  to 
this  theory,  whence  the  energy  or  power  to  revivify,  rejuvenate 
or  reenergize  a  quiescent  universe?  Here,  too,  a  transcendent 
power,  an  absolute  Being,  must  be  postulated  to  make  such  a 
theory  workable.  Herbert  Spencer  apparently  wished  such  a 
theory  could  be  established,  but  he  was  at  least  frank  enough 
to  declare,  ''The  question  whether  there  is  an  alternation  of 
evolution  and  dissolution  in  the  totality  of  things  is  one  which 
must  be  left  unanswered  as  beyond  the  reach  of  human  intel- 
ligence"   {First  Principles,  p.  506). 

Had  Spencer  stopped  here,  he  would  have  remained  within 
the  bounds  of  consistent  reason!  But  then  he  leaps  forward 
in  scientific  imagination,  or  scientific  faith,  to  the  declaration 
that  evolutions  have  filled  an  immeasurable  past  and  evolutions 
will  fill  an  immeasurable  future,  and  that  the  universe  must 
be  conceived  of  as  not  to  have  an  end  and  as  having  had  no 
beginning.  Thus,  where  reason  stops  or  fails,  scientific  faith 
or  imagination  is  invoked  to  fill  out  blanks  in  preconceived 
theories  that  would  make  the  universe  eternal  and  uncreated, 
and  that  w^ould  therefore  eliminate  from  it  the  need  of  the 
eternal  God. 

But,  nevertheless,  even  accepting  such  a  theory  of  successive 
evolutions  and  devolutions,  this  process,  however  long  con- 
tinued and  however  often  it  might  be  repeated,  would  at  last 
spell  stagnation  and  death  to  universal  nature,  as  no  number 
could  measure  off  an  eternity.  And,  as  already  intimated,  as 
potential  energy  and  kinetic  energy  alternate  each  other  in 
these  supposed  successive  universes,  they  might  ultimately  both 
be  lost  in  the  descending  work  of  equilibration,  thus  ending 
in  a  final  universal  paralysis. 

The  foregoing  should  be  convincing  argument  to  show  that, 
when  all  energy  will  have  been  stilled,  or  lost,  the  material 
paralyzed  cosmos  would  undoubtedly  have  to  disintegrate, 
even  as  the  body  does  when  life  departs  from  it.  And  disin- 
tegration would  undoubtedly  mean  annihilation,  as  we  shall 
show.  The  energy  gone,  we  could  conceive  of  no  necessity  for 
the  existence  of  matter,  nor  perhaps  even  of  its  possibility,  as 
we  know  matter  only  by  its  resistance  or  energy. 


Evidence  from  Temporal  Nature  of  Universe  1 73 

3      THE    LAW    OF    THE    CONSERVATION    OF    ENERGY    EXAMINED 

Even  if  the  sum  of  all  the  various  forms  of  energy  in  a 
closed  or  isolated  system  could  be  proved  to  be  unchangeable, 
this  would  not  prove  it  to  be  so  throughout  the  whole  uni- 
verse. But,  it  might  be  said  that  the  very  fact  that  energy 
even  in  a  closed  system  becomes  less  and  less  available,  would 
almost  certainly  indicate  that  it  is  being  spent  in  its  very  work 
of  transmutation  and  equalization.  Thus,  the  law  of  the  con- 
servation of  energy  might  hold  for  an  isolated  system  for  all 
practical  purposes  during  the  comparatively  short  centuries, 
but  eventually  in  such  a  system,  as  well  as  in  the  cosmic  whole, 
break  down.  As  a  law  it  would  be  applicable  in  practice 
within  its  proper  sphere;  but  beyond  that  sphere  it  would 
not  hold. 

There  is,  indeed,  a  growing  feeling  among  some  eminent 
scientists  that  the  law  of  the  conservation  of  energy  has  been 
accepted  upon  no  better  evidence  than  until  recently  were 
the  scientific  doctrines  that  matter  is  divided  into  some  eighty 
totally  dijfferent  and  absolutely  untransmutable  elements,  and 
that  their  so-called  atoms  are  indivisible.  These  once  uni- 
versally accepted  scientific  doctrines,  together  with  that  of  the 
conservation  of  energy,  as  also  that  of  the  conservation  of 
matter,  as  great  working  hypotheses,  subserved  a  great  pur- 
pose in  the  development  of  science.  But  to  allow  them  to 
stand  unchallenged  in  the  face  of  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
would  tend  seriously  to  hamper  scientific  progress. 

As  far  as  science  had  penetrated  into  the  mystery  of  mat- 
ter up  to  less  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  there  was  no 
evidence  against  the  supposed  indivisibility  of  the  atom  and 
the  immutability  or  indestructibility  of  the  great  variety  of 
chemical  elements.  But  no  longer  do  men  of  science  think 
of  the  atom  as  the  ultimate  unit  of  matter,  nor  of  the  so-called 
chemical  elements  as  necessarily  composed  of  totally  different 
substances.  The  electron  as  a  common  constituent  of  all 
atoms,  and  the  monistic  nature  of  matter,  have  already  been 
elevated  above  mere  theory.  We  are  not,  however,  now 
thinking  of  the  Haeckelian  monism  as  the  explanation  of  all 
existence. 

Indeed,  our  former  definitions  of  matter  and  energy,  es- 
pecially as  distinct  entities,  according  to  the  latest  pronounce- 


174  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

ments  of  philosophic  scientists,  are  no  longer  strictly  correct. 
If  the  electron  is  only  an  electric  charge,  then  so-called  matter 
is  nothing  but  energy.  Thus,  matter  would  be  only  a  mani- 
festation of  energy,  and  the  variation  of  the  one  would  be  a 
variation  of  the  other.  The  cessation  or  destruction  of  the 
one  would  be  the  cessation  or  destruction  of  the  other.  Thus, 
if  the  very  structure,  or  even  the  existence,  of  the  atom  itself 
depends  upon  its  electronic  motions  or  its  intrinsic  energy, 
then  the  quiescence  of  these  would  mean  the  ultimate  dissolu- 
tion and  annihilation  of  matter. 

A  number  of  authorities  have  thus  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  energy  is  not  indestructible.  According  to  them,  the  law 
of  conservation  of  energy  is  not  an  established  fact,  but  rather 
an  almost  necessary  postulate  for  practical  reason.  Both  sci- 
ence and  mechanics  imply  the  application  of  this  law,  at  least 
locally  for  their  sphere  of  operation.  But  such  application 
for  practical  purposes  in  our  very  limited  here  and  now,  would 
not  make  it  universal  in  the  greater  stretches  of  space  and 
time.  Among  those  who  have  not  accepted  the  doctrine  of 
the  conservation  of  energy  as  absolute  are  such  eminent  physi- 
cists as  M.  Bernard  Brunhes,  M.  Sabatier,  M.  Henri  Poincare 
and  Gustave  Le  Bon,  the  first  named  emphatically  rejecting 
it.  Le  Bon  expresses  himself  unequivocally  as  not  accepting 
this  scientific  doctrine,  in  these  words:  " Energy  is  not  inde- 
structible. It  is  unceasingly  consumed^  and  tends  to  vanish 
like  the  matter  which  represents  one  of  its  forms''  {The  Evo- 
lution of  Forces,  p.  99)' 

However,  retaining,  for  the  present,  our  idea  of  matter  as 
an  apparently  distinct  entity,  is  not  energy,  after  all,  due  only 
to  the  moving  of  matter?  Or  is  not  so-called  energy  only 
matter  in  motion?  We  might  thus  regard  all  energy  as 
probably,  in  its  last  analysis,  nothing  but  motion  or  the  effect 
of  motion.  It  is  more  common  to  regard  energy  as  that 
which  produces  motion  rather  than  as  the  effect  of  motion. 
In  a  sense,  it  is  really  both.  So-called  energy  might  be  re- 
garded first  as  having  come  from  the  primal  arrangements 
of  matter  in  its  elements.  Then,  by  adjustment,  there  would 
naturally  result  motion  or  energy;  and  this  in  its  turn  would, 
of  course,  produce  or  reproduce  motion  or  energy  in  related 
bodies,  and  so  on.  But  this  reasoning  at  once  throws  us  back 
upon  some  ulterior  or  first  cause  of  both  matter  and  energy. 


Evidence  from  Temporal  Nature  of  Universe  175 

Whence  the  primal  arrangements  of  matter  by  which  so-called 
energy  first  had  fts  origin?  And  whence  the  matter  for  such 
arrangements?  The  only  possible  answer  to  these  questions 
must  be  evident  and  needs  not  here  be  enlarged  upon.  But 
can  we  really  separate  energy  from  adjustment  and  adjust- 
ment from  matter,  chronologically?  We  may  do  so  logically, 
but  to  do  so  chronologically  is  impossible. 

Thus,  a  great  deal  depends  upon  how  a  phenomenon  in 
nature  is  viewed ;  and  important  scientific  results  at  times 
depend  upon  such  view.  This  possibility  of  viewing  phe- 
nomena in  different  ways  is  strikingly  expressed  by  Professor 
Aliotta,  as  follows:  "Had  researches  into  heat  been  made 
first,  there  would  have  been  a  tendency  to  write  books  en- 
titled: Motion  Considered  as  a  Form  of  Heat,  instead  of 
those  bearing  titles  such  as  that  of  Tyndall's  work:  Heat 
Considered  as  a  Form  of  Motion.  Hypotheses  are  the  perish- 
able part  of  science,  there  is,  however,  something  which  lives 
on  as  a  lasting  acquisition;  namely,  the  laws  which  express  the 
relations  between  the  magnitudes  of  experience.  Natiirgesetze 
sind  dauernd,  Hypothesen  sind  verganglich^*  {The  Idealistic 
Reaction  against  Science,  Tr.  by  Agnes  McCaskill,  19 14,  pp. 
357-8). 

But,  to  return  to  our  view  of  energy,  we  should  say  that 
we  shall  here  regard  energy,  known  to  us  in  physical  nature, 
as  essentially  the  effect  rather  than  the  cause  of  motion.  Thus, 
upon  this  basis,  as  is  readily  acknowledged,  so-called  physical 
energy  is  the  result  of  moving  molecules  or  masses.  Chemical 
tntrgy  is  undoubtedly  the  moving  of  electrons  from  atoms  to 
atoms,  and  similarly  for  any  conceivable  form  of  energy. 
Therefore,  stagnation  or  cessation  of  motion,  toward  which 
the  universe  is  unmistakably  tending,  would  mean  a  real  dis- 
sipation or  loss  of  energy. 

Much  confusion  as  to  the  nature  of  energy  Is  no  doubt  due 
to  a  quite  current  misconception  that  It  is  some  subtle  entity  in 
Itself,  somehow  associated  with  matter  as  though  it  were  some 
mysterious  fluid  flowing  through  or  among  the  multiform 
divisions  of  matter.  From  this  conception  of  encrrx^'  has 
arisen  the  somewhat  indefinite  notion  that  there  is  a  circula- 
tion of  energry'  throughout  the  universe,  now  appearing  under 
one  form  and  now  under  another  form,  and  that  these  various 
forms    are    changeable    and    transmutable,    one    Into    another. 


176  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

Thus,  the  Ideas  of  the  correlation  and  conservation  of  energy 
took  their  forms  from  such  a  supposed  correlation  and  con- 
servation of  matter,  as  seemed  apparent  from  the  nature  of 
matter  as  far  as  it  was  formerly  known.  But,  even  this,  as 
we  shall  see,  by  a  better  understanding  of  the  ultimate  nature 
of  matter,  can  no  longer  unqualifiedly  be  accepted. 

From  what  we  said  about  energy  and  motion  as  now 
operative  in  nature,  it  becomes  apparent  that,  as  there  must 
be  a  cause  for  the  same  in  physical  nature,  even  after  some 
necessary  ultimate  or  first  cause  that  produced  such  secondary 
physical  cause,  it  appears  altogether  probable  that  it  is  due 
to  an  adjustment  of  equilibrium.  This  is  very  apparent  in 
the  case  of  energy  from  the  equalization  of  heat,  chemical 
energy,  electrical  energy,  etc.,  and  as  is  more  and  more  be- 
lieved to  be  the  case  in  gravitation.  Thus,  when  an  equilib- 
rium will  have  been  reached,  the  energy  caused  by  the  tend- 
ency toward  equilibrium  will  have  been  spent.  And,  where 
equilibrium  exists,  there  can  be  no  energy  present  until  such 
equilibrium  will  have  been  disturbed.  And  such  disturbance 
must  necessarily  come  from  another  source.  Thus,  the  tend- 
ency toward  equilibrium,  which  is  so  distinctly  manifest 
throughout  nature,  would  ultimately  necessarily  end  in  the 
actual  annihilation  of  all  its  energy. 

In  accordance  with  this  definition  of  energy,  what  becomes 
of  so-called  potential  energy?  Has  It  any  existence  in  reality? 
Thus,  a  ball  suspended  above  the  earth  Is  in  a  position,  upon 
being  released  from  which  it  wili  produce  energy  by  the  force 
of  gravitation.  But,  while  It  is  suspended  and  motionless.  It 
has  no  real  energy;  and  upon  its  being  released,  its  energy  Is 
due  only  to  Its  position  with  reference  to  the  earth.  The 
energy  developed  by  Its  fall  is  due  to  the  adjustment  of  equilib- 
rium between  it  and  the  earth.  And,  but  for  the  force  of 
gravity  it  would  even  then  develop  no  energy.  Moreover,  if 
it  could  be  conceived  as  dropping  to  the  centre  of  the  earth, 
or  if  the  earth  could  be  conceived  of  as  a  concentrated  point, 
it  would  eventually  come  to  absolute  rest  In  equilibrium  with 
the  earth's  gravity.  The  same  reasoning  would  apply  to  the 
solar  system,  or  to  the  universe  as  a  unitary  whole.  All 
energy  In  the  universe  being  ultimately  due  to  adjustments  of 
positions  toward  equilibrium,  when  that  final  equilibrium  will 
have  been  reached,  all  energy  will  have  ceased.     A  finite  uni- 


Evidence  from  Temporal  Nature  of  Universe  177 

verse  in  space  must  therefore  necessarily  be  a  finite  universe 
in  time. 

This,  then,  brings  us  to  the  question  as  to  the  primal  source 
of  all  energy.  Suppose  we  were,  for  the  moment,  to  accept 
the  theory  that  in  the  evolution  of  the  cosmic  ether  into  atoms, 
etc.,  all  energy  was  stored  up,  so  to  speak,  for  the  evolu- 
tion of  all  worlds.  Then,  all  energy,  after  that  primal  storing 
of  energy,  would  be  due  to  a  ceaseless  adjustment  of  position 
toward  universal  equilibrium.  So-called  cosmic  evolution 
would  thus  be  due  to  this  process  of  adjustment.  In  other 
words,  as  the  so-called  kinetic  energy  in  this  process  of  ad- 
justment would  approach  its  maximum,  due  to  the  releasing 
of  elemental  matter  in  its  long  process  of  adjustment,  its  im- 
pulse might  be  supposed  to  develop  cosmic  nature.  And  with 
that  maximum  of  kinetic  energy  the  maximum  of  the  evolu- 
tionary process  would  also  be  reached.  Then,  as  the  kinetic 
energy  would  again  decrease  in  the  consequent  adjustments, 
the  opposite  of  evolution,  or  devolution,  would  set  in  and 
would  necessarily  be  accelerated  until,  in  the  final  dissipation 
of  energy,  the  material  cosmos  would  be  resolved  into  its 
primal  ethereal  state.  The  kinetic  energy  would  decrease 
with  these  final  adjustments.  As  motion  would  approach  zero, 
this  energy  would  approach  zero.  The  kinetic  energy  being 
Jmv^,  when  the  v  became  zero,  the  kinetic  energy  would  be 
equal  to  ^mo",  or  zero. 

And,  if  the  theory  that  so-called  matter  is  nothing  but 
energy,  or  that  matter  is  only  energy  cognizable  by  the  senses, 
were  true,  or  that  energy  and  matter  are  so  related  that  the 
one  varies  directly  with  the  other,  then,  as  v  would  approach 
zero,  m  also  would  approach  zero.  Or,  as  energy  would  de- 
crease, so-called  matter  would  decrease.  Our  formula,  Jmv^, 
would  thus  eventually  become  ^00^  (equal  to  zero)  ;  or  both 
energy  and  matter  would  disappear  or  pass  away.  In  other 
words,  if  all  things  were  only  modes  of  motion,  as  is  held  by 
some  physicists,  then  the  resultant  equilibrium,  or  rather 
quiescence,  would  mean  annihilation  of  both  energy  and  mat- 
ter, even  without  any  destructive  fiat  of  a  transcendent  Deity. 

Thus,  then,  whether  energy  is  really  or  only  apparently  lost 
in  transmutation,  there  will  be  a  final  universal  paralysis, 
which  in  either  case  will  therefore  mean  the  end  or  death  of 


178  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

the  present  order  of  nature,  and  its  undoubted  annihilation. 
The  wheels  of  nature  in  revolving  and  rotating  suns  and 
planets  will  cease  to  move;  the  mechanical,  chemical  and  vital 
forces  of  all  worlds  will  be  balanced  in  mortal  equilibrium; 
and  with  this  stagnation  the  universe  will  be  dissolved  into 
its  elements.  And,  then,  with  the  disintegration  of  its  atoms 
by  their  intrinsic  energy,  the  ultimate  energy  of  the  universe 
will  apparently  be  spent,  and  its  material  substratum  will  un- 
doubtedly pass  away.  Thus,  limitation  as  to  the  future  is 
written  clear  and  large  over  universal  nature. 


4      THE  THEORY  OF  AN   INFINITE   QUANITY  OF   ENERGY  CON- 
SIDERED 

Upon  the  basis  of  a  theory  that  energy  is  a  separate  real 
entity,  some  men — for  example,  Herbert  Spencer — have  sug- 
gested that  the  total  energy  itself  might  be  infinite,  and  that 
this  would  make  possible  an  endless  or  eternal  dissipation.  If 
that  were  true,  it  is  contended,  then  the  universe  could  have 
no  end,  nor,  of  course,  could  it  have  had  a  beginning. 

As  so-called  matter  Is,  however,  finite,  as  already  shown, 
regarding  It  as  the  basis  or  passive  substance  In  which  energy 
operates  or  acts,  that  energy  for  which  this  finite  matter  would 
be  the  basis  would  also  necessarily  have  to  be  finite.  This 
would  follow  also  from  the  law  of  secondary  cause  and  effect, 
as  developed  In  the  fourth  chapter.  Moreover,  as  energy  is 
quantitative,  and  can  be  measured  In  its  various  manifesta- 
tions, it  must,  upon  this  basis  also,  be  regarded  as  finite,  for  no 
aggregation  or  multiplication  of  measured  quantities  can  con- 
stitute an  Infinite.  Therefore,  even  this  suggestion,  made  in 
the  interests  of  a  possibly  eternal,  and  therefore  uncreated,  uni- 
verse, in  order  to  eliminate  the  need  of  a  Deity,  is  seen  to  have 
no  foundation  in  truth  or  fact. 

Moreover,  as  to  a  supposed  eternal  evolution^  there  would 
be  an  inherent  insurmountable  difficulty.  If  evolution  were 
external,  Its  end  would  have  to  be  infinite.  Then,  what  would 
that  infinite  product  be?  Again,  if  the  universe  were  eternal 
and  the  evolution  were  not  eternal,  where  or  when  would  it 
stop?  Moreover,  such  a  possible  end  of  evolution  would  be 
in  direct  conflict  with  the  preconceptions  of  these  men  as  to 
the  operations  of  an  infinite  and  eternal  universe.     Hence,  an 


Evidence  from  Temporal  Nature  of  Universe  179 

explanation  must  be  found  to  overcome  this  difficulty.  And 
such  an  explanation,  apparently  satisfactory  to  himself,  Spen- 
cer attempts  to  give  In  the  following  words:  "Is  It  possible 
for  the  universal  metamorphosis  to  proceed  In  the  same  gen- 
eral course  indefinitely?  or  does  It  work  towards  some  ulti- 
mate state  admitting  no  further  modification  of  like  kind? 
The  last  of  these  alternative  conclusions  Is  that  to  which  we 
are  inevitably  driven.  Whether  we  watch  concrete  processes, 
or  whether  we  consider  the  question  in  the  abstract,  we  are 
alike  taught  that  Evolution  has  an  impassable  limit"  {First 
Principles,  p.  446). 

Thus,  one  theory  must  be  developed  to  bolster  up  another. 
Eternal  evolution  would  mean  an  Infinite  product.  That,  in 
accordance  with  Spencer's  own  philosophy,  would  be  incon- 
ceivable. And  an  evolution  not  eternal  would  mean  an  end 
of  evolution;  and,  in  the  light  of  the  present  operations  of 
nature's  laws,  it  would  mean  an  end  of  nature  with  her  laws. 
This  is  a  dilemma,  either  horn  of  w^hlch  it  would  be  dangerous 
to  his  philosophy  to  grasp.  Hence,  a  limit  must  be  assigned 
to  the  evolutionary  process  beyond  which  nature's  laws  must 
be  either  eternally  passive,  or  perchance  operative  along  other 
lines  of  evolution,  or  of  devolution  for  another  re-evolution, 
etc.  But  w^here  is  that  limit  of  this  supposed  evolution? 
What  or  who  set  its  bounds?  If  nature's  laws  are  supposedly 
uniform  In  their  operations  up  to  a  certain  point,  why  should 
that  uniformity  of  operation  thus  at  that  point  break  down? 
Who  keeps  on  recharging  the  batteries  of  an  eternally  cycling 
universe?  Where  now  is  the  great  law  of  inertia?  But  why 
press  further  questions!  It  Is  enough  to  say  that  all  this  was 
mere  theory  even  with  Spencer  himself.  And  it  is,  of  course, 
only  too  manifest  that  even  this  theory  implies  an  absolute 
and  eternal  Cause  at  every  step.  And  even  then  it  would 
not  prove  the  existing  universe  to  be  eternal  with  reference  to 
the  future — as  already  show^n — any  more  than  it  could  prove 
it  to  be  eternal  with  reference  to  the  past — as  we  shall  pres- 
ently see. 

Thus,  upon  whatever  basis  considered,  the  physical  universe 
will  have  an  end.  And  this  is  the  conclusion  that  is  neces- 
sarily reached,  both  from  its  only  too  manifest  testimony  and 
from  its  very  nature.    Thus,  even  John  Fiske  was  moved  to 


i8o  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

accept  the  teaching  of  the  Apostle  Peter  (II.  Peter,  Chapter  3) 
on  this  point,  as  definitely  expressed  in  the  following  words: 
"The  day  is  to  come,  no  doubt,  when  the  heavens  shall  vanish 
as  a  scroll,  and  the  elements  be  melted  with  fervent  heat.  So 
small  is  the  value  which  Nature  sets  upon  the  perishable  forms 
of  matter!"  (The  Destiny  of  Man,  p.  114).  Or,  in  the 
words  of  England's  greatest  poet, 

"And,  like  the  baseless  fabric  of  this  vision. 
The  cloud-capp'd  towers,  the  gorgeous  palaces, 
The  solemn  temples,  the  great  globe  itself. 
Yea,  all  which  it  inherit,  shall  dissolve; 
And,  like  this  insubstantial  pageant  faded, 
Leave  not  a  rack  behind." 

(Shakespeare:  Te?npest,  Act  IV.,  Scene  I.). 

II  A  BEGINNING  IN  THE  PAST  EVIDENT  FROM 
THE  PRESENT  OPERATIONS  OF  NATURE'S 
LAWS 

An  application  of  the  principles  and  facts  stated  above, 
also  unmistakably  points  to  limitation,  or  a  beginning,  in  the 
past. 

I       EVOLUTION    MUST    NECESSARILY    IMPLY    A    BEGINNING    OF 

ITS   OPERATION 

Had  the  universe — which  is>  necessarily  finite,  as  already 
shown — existed  from  eternity,  then  in  the  eternity  past,  or 
long  ago,  would  the  outworkings  of  its  laws  have  been  ac- 
complished. And,  therefore,  its  supposed  evolution  would 
necessarily  have  run  its  course  to  a  completed  universe  unas- 
signable ages  ago.  Surely,  the  various  forms  of  energy  in 
cosmic  nature  would  long  ago  have  been  transmuted  into  heat; 
the  heat  would  long  ago  have  been  dissipated  and  equalized, 
or  lost;  and  that  universal  paralysis  and  undoubted  annihila- 
tion would  long  ago  have  taken  place.  Indeed,  if  such  an 
evolutionary  process  had  been  at  work  from  eternity,  it  would, 
countless  ages  before  the  advent  of  man,  have  resulted  in 
such  a  being,  and  indeed  in  an  infinitely  more  wonderful 
being.  Yea,  an  eternal  or  infinite  evolution  would  necessarily 
have  produced  infinite  beings — veritable  gods.    But,  the  heat  is 


Evidence  from  Temporal  Nature  of  Universe  i8i 

not  yet  equalized;  all  energy  has  not  yet  been  transmuted  Into 
heat;  man  Is  still  immeasurably  below  the  perfect  and  Infinite 
being  that  such  eternal  evolution  should  have  produced;  and 
nature's  laws  are  still  at  work  on  their  evidently  designed 
mission.  And,  according  to  these  men,  the  universe  is  even 
still  developing.  This  supposed  past  eternity  of  evolving 
worlds,  it  might  almost  be  said,  must  thus  have  begun  in  even 
practically  measurable  or  assignable  time — which,  of  course,  is 
an  absurdity. 

This  fact  of  the  beginning  in  time  of  the  universe,  is  also 
the  most  assured  conclusion  of  science.  Thus  Simon  New- 
comb  expresses  this  truth  with  reference  to  a  star,  in  the  fol- 
lowing emphatic  words:  "The  general  fact  that  every  star 
has  a  life  history — that  this  history  will  ultimately  come  to  an 
end — that  It  must  have  had  a  beginning  in  time — Is  indicated 
by  so  great  a  number  of  concurring  facts  that  no  one  who 
has  most  profoundly  studied  the  subject  can  have  serious 
doubts  upon  it"  {The  Stars,  pp.  223-4).  Even  Herbert 
Spencer  was  compelled  to  remark,  that,  upon  the  theory  of 
the  dissipation  of  energy,  etc.,  there  would  not  only  have  to 
be  an  end  of  the  world  or  universe,  but  that  there  also  must 
have  been  a  beginning. 

Thus,  as  this  theoretical  process  of  evolution,  etc.,  has  sup- 
posedly been  going  on  and  is  still  supposed  to  be  going  on.  It 
must  have  had  a  beginning  in  time,  when  all  the  potentialities 
of  all  its  operations  were  Imposed  upon  inert  already  created 
matter — or  upon  matter  in  its  creation — from  an  external 
source,  or  by  some  external  power.  This  was,  as  we  should 
say — if  matter  and  energy  be  regarded  as  distinct  entitles — 
by  the  omnific  will  of  Him  Who  previously  had  also  created 
matter — or  while  creating  matter — as  the  substance  or  medium 
for  the  operations  of  the  associated  energy.  Or,  if  matter  be 
regarded  as  only  energy  manifested,  or  energy  as  matter 
merely  In  process  of  adjustment,  It  was  when  that  matter  or 
energy  was  thus  first  spoken  Into  being.  Nor  could  any  initial 
distribution  of  heat  or  other  energy  be  otherwise  accounted 
for,  not  even  upon  the  fanciful  theory  of  any  supposed  preced- 
ing universe  or  universes,  as  no  number  of  such  could  consti- 
tute an  eternal  successive  or  concatenated  entity.  Thus,  even 
though  such  a  theory  of  evolution  were  true,  yet  nevertheless 
our  explanation  of  the  origin  of  matter  and   energy — or  of 


1 82  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

matter  or  energy — would  alone  satisfy  reason,  even  as  It  alone 
could  satisfy  the  human  heart. 

If  such  a  theory  of  evolution  were  true,  even  then  God 
would  no  less  remain  the  Source  of  all.  From  Him  must  have 
come  the  material  substratum  for  the  operations  of  energy,  or 
energy  as  the  manifestation  of  so-called  matter.  From  Him 
must  have  come  all  the  potentialities  for  evolutions  into  ac- 
tualities. In  the  gradual  transmutation  of  potential  energy 
into  kinetic  energy  and  back  again,  and  in  the  transmission  or 
generation  of  matter  and  energy  from  preceding  to  succeeding 
universes — as   already  Intimated. 

Thus,  surely,  then,  there  must  have  been  a  beginning  of 
the  universe,  or  else  it  would  long  ago  have  passed  away. 
Then,  whence  or  how  its  energy,  or  its  matter — again  we  say 
— If  not  from  an  infinite  and  absolute  Cause? 

To  avoid  this  obvious  difficulty,  it  is  held  that  matter,  in  its 
etheric  form  at  least,  existed  from  eternity,  and  that  the  energy 
came  from  the  contractions  and  condensations  of  the  ether  into 
ponderable  matter.  In  answer  to  this  we  say  that  the  first 
part  of  this  statement,  that  matter  is  eternal,  Is,  of  course,  a 
begging  of  the  question ;  and  that  the  second  part,  as  to  Its  con- 
centration, would  be  impossible  without  an  external  cause. 
Even  If  there  had  been  on  hand  an  eternal  etheric  matter,  of 
itself  it  could  not  contract  and  concentrate;  it  could  not  pro- 
duce energy;  and  therefore  It  could  not  develop  into  an  en- 
ergized cosmos.  Hence,  even  upon  the  absurd  assumption  that 
matter  in  its  etheric  form  was  eternal,  a  Deity  must  be  postu- 
lated back  of  that  supposed  ether  for  the  evolution  of  the  uni- 
verse from  It.  But,  surely — as  we  are  endeavoring  to  dem- 
onstrate— there  must  have  been  a  Deity  back  even  of  that 
primal  etheric  matter  as  the  cause  of  its  existence,  no  less  than 
as  the  cause  of  its  energy  In  a  supposedly  evolved  or  evolving 
universe. 

Arrhenius  apparently  sees  the  untenableness  of  the  theory  of 
a  continually  progressive  and  eternal  past  evolution,  as  wit- 
ness the  following  words:  "Up  to  the  beginning  of  this  cen- 
tury [twentieth]  the  gravitation  of  Newton  seemed  to  rule 
supreme  over  the  motions  and  over  the  development  of  the 
material  universe.  By  virtue  of  this  gravitation  the  celestial 
bodies  should  tend  to  draw  together,  to  unite  in  ever-growing 
masses.     In  the  infinite  space  of  past  time  the  evolution  should 


Evidence  from  Temporal  Nature  of  Universe  183 

have  proceeded  so  far  that  some  large  suns,  bright  or  extinct, 
could  alone  persist.  All  life  would  be  impossible  under  such 
conditions"  {Worlds  in  the  Making ,  pp.  207-8).  The  fact 
that  planets,  etc.,  about  our  sun — and  probably  about  other 
suns  or  stars — still  exist  unabsorbed  by,  or  unconsolidated 
with,  their  central  suns,  has  led  Arrhenius  to  look  for  a  cause 
of  such  apparent  delay  in  the  universal  concentration.  This 
he  finds  in  "the  action  of  the  mechanical  radiation  pressure 
of  light,  and  in  the  collisions  between  celestial  bodies." 

Such  counteracting  of  the  force  of  gravitation  by  radiation 
pressure,  etc.,  would,  however,  imply  a  perfect  balancing  of 
these  forces,  or  else  either  concentration  or  disintegration 
would  nevertheless  eventually  result.  However,  the  ascer- 
tained evidence  of  nature  is  against  the  existence  of  such  an 
equilibrium  of  forces.  At  any  rate,  even  such  equilibrium 
w^ould  not  make  for  an  eternal  order.  Even  such  a  supposedly 
perfect  arrangement  would  necessarily  have  had  to  be  originated 
and  adjusted  by  a  power  other  than  that  of  nature's  own 
existing  forces.  Hence,  when  considered  in  the  light  also  of 
other  evidence,  especially  that  set  forth  in  our  next  chapter, 
the  universe  must  stand   forth  as  a  temporal  entity. 

2      THE     THEORY     OF     REPEATING    OR     SUCCESSIVE     UNIVERSES 

INADEQUATE 

As  already  indicated,  some  scientists  have  endeavored  to 
account  for  an  eternal  process  of  evolution  in  nature,  by 
working  out  an  apparently  consistent  theory  of  a  possible  re- 
peating of  evolutions  from  chaos  to  completed  cosmos,  by 
cycles  of  redisintegrations  and  reevolutions.  According  to 
this  theory,  our  present  stage  of  supposed  evolution,  or  course 
of  nature,  would  be  only  one  of  these  C5'cles,  not  yet  risen  to 
the  height  of  impending  redisintegration  for  a  new  reevolution. 
They  thus  attempt  to  imagine  a  past  eternity  of  such  repeat- 
ing cycles.  This  theory  was  already  suggested  by  Democritus 
(fl.  about  400  to  357  B.C.),  who  made  bold  guesses  that  all 
matter  is  made  up  of  atoms,  and  that  the  cosmic  whole  is  an 
eternity  of  repeating  cycles — of  birth,  maturity,  death  and 
rejuvenescence. 

The  present  conception  of  eternally  repeating  cycles  has 
been  well  expressed  by  a  number   of  writers.     In  his  work, 


184  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

Chemistry  and  Its  Borderland,  19  H*  Alfred  W.  Stewart  de- 
clares that  "the  generally  accepted  theory  of  cosmic  evolution 
postulates  a  cyclic  process  in  the  universe"  (p.  198).  And 
this  theory  of  cyclic  evolution  he  develops  somewhat  at  length; 
and  his  explanation,  as  a  mere  scientific  theory,  is  very  in- 
genious and  rather  plausibly  self-consistent.  However,  upon 
examination  it  is  seen,  in  the  interests  of  consistency,  to  set 
forth,  as  though  established,  point  after  point  for  which  nature 
affords  but  the  faintest  evidence,  or  at  least  only  such  very 
fragmentary  evidence  as  in  no  way  warrants  the  implied  con- 
clusions. Soddy,  too,  holds  to  the  possibility  of  an  evolution 
"proceeding  in  continuous  cycles,  without  beginning  and  with- 
out end,  in  which  the  waste  energy  of  one  part  of  the  cycle  is 
transformed  in  another  part  of  the  cycle  back  into  available 
forms"  {The  Interpretation  of  Radium,  p.  240).  This  state- 
ment is,  of  course,  based  upon  the  almost  unlimited  energy  and 
the  vast  life  periods  of  radioactive  substances.  But  no  exag- 
geration of  such  energy  and  duration  of  existence,  nor  of  any 
other  known  forces  or  cycles  of  forces  operative  in  nature,  would 
constitute  an  eternal  process.  Geoffrey  Martin  holds  that  the 
rate  of  formation  and  the  rate  of  disintegration  of  matter  in 
the  long  run  balance  each  other.  After  speaking  of  supposed 
nebula  formation  and  of  condensing  worlds  and  reproduced 
nebulae  from  collisions  and  condensations  of  worlds,  he  makes 
the  following  statement:  "And  so  on  for  all  the  ages  circulates 
the  universe,  like  some  vast  self-compensating  machine,  radia- 
tion pressure  compensating  gravitation,  and  the  concentration 
of  potential  heat  energy  in  the  nebulae  compensating  its  loss 
in  the  suns"  {Triumphs  and  Wonders  of  Modern  Chemistry, 
191 1,  p.  54).  This  view  of  Martin  is  in  agreement  also  with 
the  theory  held  by  Arrhenius,  as  developed  in  Chapter  VII.  of 
his  Worlds  in  the  Making, 

It  is  true  that  there  are  some  rhythmic  compensating  opera- 
tions apparently  continually  going  on  in  nature;  but  these 
by  no  means  afford  adequate  evidence  for  any  acceptable  theory 
of  supposed  eternal  cyclic  universe-processes.  Our  very  lim- 
ited data  as  to  the  processes  of  the  universal  whole  are  alto- 
gether insufficient  to  enable  us  from  them  to  draw  the  con- 
clusion that  the  universe  is  an  eternal  entity.  And,  in  the 
light  of  the  evidence  of  its  necessary  finiteness,  as  already 
seen,  as  well  as  that  of  the  temporal  nature  of  matter  itself, 


Evidence  from  Temporal  Nature  of  Universe  185 

to  be  shown  in  the  following  chapter,  the  only  logical  con- 
clusion possible  is  that  the  universe  as  a  whole  is  also  a  tem- 
poral entity. 

It  might  be  said,  however,  that,  if  the  absolute  Cause  of  the 
universe  were  included  in  the  above  idea  of  the  universe^  as 
from  eternity  possessing  the  potentiality  of  the  physical  uni- 
verse— which  would  be  an  absurd  inclusion  in  that  word — 
there  would  be  a  sense  in  which  the  universe  might  be  said  to 
have  always  existed.  Thus,  in  that  unwarranted  sense  of  the 
word  universe  J  as  including  the  eternal  Cause  of  the  conse- 
quently eternally  potential  universe,  one  might  figuratively 
speak  of  it  as  eternal.  And  we  fear  that  this  is  the  somewhat 
confused  sense  in  which  the  universe  is  by  many  eternalists  re- 
garded. We  cannot  help  but  consider  this  as  even  Haeckel's 
position. 

It  is  seen  that  the  scientists  quoted  above  speak  of  cyclic 
transitions  from  nebulae  to  stars  and  back  to  nebulae  again, 
and  of  immeasurable  epochs,  in  connection  with  this  supposed 
evolution  of  the  universe.  And,  as  radiation  pressure  is  un- 
doubtedly as  much  a  reality  as  gravitation,  their  theory  would 
at  least  have  this  indefinite  suggestion  to  commend  it  to  the 
speculative  mind.  If  such  were  the  creative  Deity's  chosen 
methods  of  operation,  it  would  make  possible  an  immeas- 
urably longer  duration  of  the  universe  than  various  oth^r  iso- 
lated phenomena  seem  to  indicate,  as  we  shall  see.  But,  no 
number  of  cyclic  transitions  and  immeasurable  epochs,  how- 
ever long  each  cycle  or  epoch  might  be,  could  measure  off  or 
fill  an  eternity.  For,  however  great  their  number  and  how- 
ever long  each  cycle,  their  accumulated  addition  or  multiplica- 
tion would  still  produce  finiteness.  And,  therefore,  however 
long  that  time  in  the  grand  aggregate,  it  would  still  be  short 
of  an  eternity.  Moreover,  the  very  association  of  these  cycles 
or  epochs  with  such  supposed  evolution  would  necessarily  be 
a  contradiction,   if  they  constituted  eternity. 

It  is  certainly  a  long  step  from  immeasurable  epochs  to 
eternity.  It  is,  moreover,  a  bold  step  to  assume  that  gravita- 
tion and  radiation  pressure  are  so  balanced  as  to  cause  a  con- 
tinuous repeating  of  universes.  The  very  least  deviation  from 
equality  in  such  balance,  according  to  this  theory,  even  though 
caused  only  by  ethereal  friction,  etc.,  would  in  almost  ascertain- 
able time  result  either  in  total  concentration  or  in  total  disin- 


1 86  Creation  Ex  Nthilo 

tegration,  as  already  noted.  And,  in  either  case — from  some 
facts  already  cited  and  others  to  be  cited — it  would  point  to 
the  death  and  end  of  the  universe.  And  hence,  as  that  death 
or  end  has  not  yet  been  reached,  it  would  incontrovertibly 
prove  that  the  universe  also  had  a  beginning.  Indeed,  this 
conclusion  is  inevitable  from  a  number  of  considerations, 
whatever  theory  as  to  repeating  universes  might  be  offered. 

These  facts,  therefore,  afford  incontrovertible  proof  that  this 
cosmic  nature  with  its  myriad  forces  and  laws  had  a  begin- 
ning in  time,  and  that  there  was  a  time  w^hen  it  did  not  exist. 
Hence,  these  considerations  alone  should  be  convincing  that 
the  universe,  and  therefore  matter,  cannot  have  existed  from 
eternity,  and  that  it  must  therefore  have  been  created. 

3      OUR   CONCLUSION   NOT   CHANGED   BY   MAKING  THE   ETHER 
THE    FINAL   REALM    OF    ENERGY 

It  has  been  contended  by  some  men  that  the  final  realm 
or  end  of  the  so-called  dissipation  of  heat,  and  therefore  of  all 
energy,  is  the  imponderable  ether,  that  this  ether  must  be 
extended  infinitely,  and  that  therefore  this  would  be  a  suffi- 
cient medium  or  ground  for  an  eternal  radiation. 

To  be  sure,  there  can  be  no  radiation  of  heat  into  abso- 
lutely empty  space,  for  if  heat  is  a  mode  of  motion — as 
Tyndall  first  defined  it — it  necessarily  implies  a  something 
moved.  The  same  is,  of  course,. true  of  all  energ}^  as  already 
seen,  upon  the  basis  of  such  a  definition.  Heat,  or  any  other 
form  of  energy,  can  therefore,  upon  this  theory  of  energy, 
not  exist  apart  from  a  moving  substance.  And,  therefore,  the 
existence  of  the  ether  must  be  postulated  in  order  to  account 
for  this  so-called  dissipation  of  energy,  as  well  as  for  other 
phenomena  of  light,  etc. — unless  we  changed  our  conception 
of  heat,  etc.  And,  if  our  definition  of  heat  were  changed  to 
accommodate  it  to  a  supposed  non-existence  of  the  ether — or 
space-vacuity — then  that  apparent  dissipation  of  energy  into 
an  empty  interstellar  void,  upon  such  a  theory,  also  would 
necessarily  become  a  real  dissipation  and  loss,  and  therefore 
without  ultimate  conservation  of  it — a  fact  to  which  we  have 
already  called  attention.  Then,  this  dissipation,  in  hastening 
the  end  of  the  universe,   an  end,   however,   not  yet  reached, 


Evidence  from  Temporal  Nature  of  Universe         187 

proves  that  it  necessarily  had  a  beginning. 

But,  retaining  our  conception  of  heat,  any  substance  in  con- 
nection with  which  it  can  exist  must  be  composed  of  individual 
moving  or  mobile  particles.  Therefore,  ether  being  posited,  it 
also  must  be  a  substance  composed  of  individual  particles,  as 
we  shall  more  fully  show  in  our  next  chapter,  or  else  there 
could  be  no  vibration  and  therefore  no  radiation.  It  must, 
therefore,  for  the  reason  already  given,  be  finite  in  extent, 
as  we  have  shown  indeed  matter  or  anything  analogous  to  mat- 
ter to  be.  This  would  altogether  contradict  this  objection. 
Therefore,  the  radiated,  or  supposedly  dissipated,  heat  or 
energy  throughout  the  universally  ether-enveloped  stellar  uni- 
verse, would  always  have  been  approaching  its  equilibrium. 
Hence,  that  equilibrium  would  also  long  ago  have  been 
reached,  if  this  supposed  distribution  and  equilibration  had 
been  going  on  from  eternity. 

Therefore,  the  present  order  of  nature,  however  viewed, 
had  a  beginning,  just  as  we  have  showed  it  also  to  be  tend- 
ing to  its  inevitable  end.  Nor  would  the  indefinite  multiplica- 
tion of  succeeding  orders  of  nature  in  the  past,  as  we  have  seen, 
remove  their  primal  beginning  to  the  eternity  of  the  past,  any 
more  than  their  indefinite  multiplication  in  the  future  would 
move  their  end  to  the  eternity  of  the  future — if  indeed  we 
could  speak  of  a  past  and  a  future  in  relation  to  a  beginning- 
less  and  endless  eternity.  And,  as  the  aggregate  of  any  num- 
ber of  universes  whatsoever  could  not  make  up  an  infinite  in 
quantity  or  space,  so  the  combined  durations  of  any  number 
of  consecutive  universes  could  not  measure  off  an  eternity  or 
infinite  in  time.  A  beginning  there  must  have  been,  whether 
there  have  been  many  successive  universes,  or  only  one,  as  also 
there  will  be  an  end. 

And  even  if  that  end,  in  the  absolute  sense,  were  not  brought 
about  by  the  operations  of  its  own  laws  or  what  might  be 
called  its  inherent  death,  its  annihilation  would  undoubtedly 
none  the  less  take  place.  The  very  fact  of  its  certainly  ap- 
proaching death  or  paralysis,  upon  having  fulfilled  its  evi- 
dently designed  mission,  would  as  surely  imply  its  annihilation 
by  the  destructive  fiat  of  an  omnipotent  Will,  as  its  evidence 
of  a  beginning  in  time  as  an  ordered  universe  implies  its  primal 
origination  by  that  same  Will.    Thus,  just  as  the  evidences  of 


1 88  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

a  beginning  in  time  as  an  ordered  universe  imply  its  primal 
origination  by  an  omnific  Will,  even  apart  from  any  direct 
proofs  of  that  fact,  so  does  the  very  fact  of  its  certainly  ap- 
proaching death  or  paralysis,  upon  having  fulfilled  its  evi- 
dently designed  mission,  imply  its  annihilation  by  that  same 
omnipotent  Will,  either  indirectly  by  the  originally  imposed 
inherent  forces,  or  directly  by  His  final  destructive  fiat  after 
its  created  purpose  shall  have  been  subserved.  And,  indeed,  as 
already  noted,  as  a  finite  universe  it  could  no  more  continue 
through  the  eternity  of  the  future  than  it  could  have  existed 
from  the  eternity  of  the  past.  To  be  sure,  we  are  here  speak- 
ing of  a  future  and  a  past  eternity — a  necessity  for  human  con- 
ception and  expression — but  in  reality  there  is  no  past  nor 
future  in  an  unmeasured  and  undivided  eternity,  in  which 
there  naturally  is  no  time  relativity. 

In  what  is  said  above,  as  well  as  elsewhere  in  this  volume, 
about  the  undeniably  temporal  nature  of  the  physical  universe, 
we  would,  however,  not  imply  that  there  may  not  have  existed 
universes,  also  necessarily  created  entities,  before  the  present  one 
and  that  there  may  not  be  created  universes  after  the  present 
one  will  have  ceased  to  be.  Nor  would  we  even  imply  that  the 
Omnipotent  might  not  have  created  this  or  any  possible  past 
universe — or  might  not  create  a  future  universe  or  universes — 
to  continue  in  unchanging  duration  forever.  What  we  do 
assert  is,  that,  according  to  the  existing  universe's  own  over- 
whelming testimony,  it  is  so  constituted  that  it  is  by  nature 
necessarily  a  temporal  entity.  And  the  evidence  is  as  convinc- 
ing that  it  had  a  beginning  in  a  creation  ex  nihilo  as  it  is  that 
it  will  have  an  end  in  annihilation.  And  thus  the  evidence  is 
equally  convincing  that  it  is  not  an  end  in  itself,  but  only  a 
created  temporal  means  for  the  working  out  of  some  transcen- 
dent purpose,  a  point  which  we  shall  briefly  consider  in  another 
chapter. 

It  is  therefore  evident  from  the  operations  of  nature  con- 
sidered as  a  unitary  whole,  that  the  universe  must  necessarily 
be  a  temporal,  and  therefore  a  created,  entity.  We  shall  now 
proceed  to  show  in  our  next  chapter  also  from  the  very  nature 
of  matter  itself,  that  it  will  have  an  end,  and  that  therefore  it 
must  have  had  a  beginning,  or  that  it  must  have  been  created. 


CHAPTER  VII 

EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  NATURE  OF  MATTER 
ITSELF  THAT  THE  PHYSICAL  UNIVERSE  IS  A 
TEMPORAL  ENTITY 

As  various  theories  of  matter  have  been  developed  by  phi- 
losophers and  scientists,  it  is  important  to  know  whether  these 
can  afFect  our  conclusions.  This  is,  however,  virtually  as 
much  a  question  of  metaphysics  as  it  is  of  physics  in  the  more 
general  sense. 

It  is  more  and  more  being  held  that  we  do  not  know  matter 
directl}^  but  that  we  know  it  only  by  its  properties  and 
phenomena.  This  is,  of  course,  in  accord  with  the  Kantian 
conception,  that  we  know  only  phenomena  but  not  that  of 
which  they  are  the  phenomena.  Thus,  we  may  see  an  object 
by  its  color;  we  may  hear  it  by  what  we  speak  of  as  its  sound; 
we  may  feel  it  by  what  we  know  as  its  heat,  its  resistance  or 
its  weight;  we  may  taste  it  by  what  we  designate  its  flavor; 
we  may  smell  it  by  what  we  call  its  odor.  But,  apart  from 
its  color,  sound,  heat  and  weight  or  resistance,  flavor,  or  odor 
— and  these  are  apparently  merely  the  results  of  the  vibrations 
of  its  hypothetical  particles — it  does  not  exist  as  far  as  our 
physical  senses  are  concerned.  Indeed,  if  we  could  conceive 
of  our  senses  as  different  from  what  they  are,  the  object  would 
necessarily  appear  different  to  us.  Therefore,  the  same  object 
would  appear  different  by  its  differently  affecting  differently 
constituted  sense-organs.  And  this  difference  might  be  con- 
ceived of  in  any  possible  degree,  even  to  non-existence — 
which,  of  course,  would  be  the  case  for  us  with  the  entire  re- 
moval of  our  sense-organs.  Moreover,  even  as  we  are  con- 
stituted, to  a  certain  extent  no  two  persons  have  exactly  the 
same  sense-impressions  from  the  same  object.  And,  there- 
fore, no  two  persons  really  ever  see  or  know  the  same  object 

189 


IQO  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

alike.     That  we  do  not  really  know  matter  itself,  is  thus  held 
by  many  scientists,  as  well  as  philosophers. 

Outside  of  ourselves  there  is,  therefore,  apparently  no  light, 
heat,  color,  sound,  or  odor.  From  the  view-point  of  per- 
ceiving man,  matter  may,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  virtually 
an  abstraction.  And,  by  many  thinkers  it  has  been  regarded 
as  even  unthinkable  apart  from  energy,  the  ultimate  physical 
cause  of  its  so-called  phenomena.  Moreover,  to  define  matter 
properly  is  practically  impossible,  as  by  its  very  nature  there 
is  nothing  with  which  to  compare  it,  or  in  terms  of  which  to 
form  a  definition.  As  it  is  itself  fundamental,  there  is  noth- 
ing more  simple  and  fundamental  of  which  it  consists,  and  by 
reference  to  which  it  can  be  expressed  or  defined.  The  ques- 
tion has,  therefore,  naturally  arisen  as  to  what  the  ultimate 
or  absolute  nature  of  that  is  which  we  call  matter. 

The  majority  of  thinkers  have,  however,  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  matter  is  the  substantia  or  essence  which  con- 
stitutes the  basis  or  medium  of  phenomena.  Phenomena  would 
thus  be  only  the  manifestations  of  matter  under  different  modes 
and  conditions  and  with  different  attributes  or  properties. 
These  would,  therefore,  not  themselves  be  substance,  but  only 
the  manifestations  of  substance,  which  constitutes  their  basis 
and  makes  them  possible.  This  may  be  spoken  of  as  the  ma- 
terialistic conception  of  matter.  We  are  here,  of  course,  deal- 
ing only  with  what  is  generally  known  as  material  or  physical 
substance. 

There  are  other  thinkers,  however,  who  consider  what  we 
call  matter  as  nothing  but  energy.  So-called  matter  itself,  ac- 
cording to  this  view,  has  no  existence  in  reality,  and  apart 
from  energy^  even  its  apparent  existence  would  cease.  Accord- 
ing to   some,   the   ultimate   nature   of   this  so-called   matter   is 

electrical. 

According  to  the  view  of  some  philosophers,  matter  would 
be  virtually  only  a  necessary  postulation  of  reason.  With 
Plato  (427-347  B.  C.)  it  was  only  the  correlate  of  idea,  and 
so  had  existence  only  as  such.  With  Descartes  (i 596-1 650), 
Locke  (1632-1704),  Bishop  Berkeley  (1684-1753),  Fichte 
(1762-18 1 4),  and  even  apparently  in  a  sense  with  Lotze 
(181 7-1 881),   it  had  no   real  objective   existence.     Generally 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  191 

speaking,  these  views  may  be  called  the  idealistic  conception  of 
matter. 

The  apparent  reasoning  of  many  men  starts  from  the  idea 
of  mere  resistance  and  ends  in  non-existence.  Resistance  is 
offered  by  matter,  and  so  it  is  by  energy.  And,  as  we  know 
what  is  called  matter  ultimately  only  indirectly  by  energy,  so- 
called  matter  and  energy  must  be  identical.  And,  moreover, 
as  we  know  so-called  matter  or  energy  only  as  sense-impres- 
sion, it  can  have  no  real  existence  apart  from  the  senses,  and 
must  therefore  be  a  non-reality.  Thus  a  natural  conclusion 
often  reached  by  such  reasoning  is  idealism.  We  cannot  stop 
to  examine  the  merits  of  such  reasoning,  except  to  say  that, 
while  for  us,  apart  from  sense-perception,  in  its  broader  sense, 
matter  would  not  exist,  such  lack  of  sense-perception  on  our 
part  would  in  itself  not  prove  its  non-existence.  It  might  be 
an  objective  reality  not  only  in  itself,  but  also  for  other  pos- 
sible perceiving  beings. 

While  we  cannot  here  enter  into  a  discussion  of  these  rather 
general  conceptions  of  the  ultimate  nature  of  what  we  call 
matter,  we  may  say  in  anticipation  of  what  is  to  follow,  that, 
upon  the  basis  of  these  conceptions,  matter  is  at  least  not  a 
permanent  or  enduring  entity.  If  it  were  only  a  postulate  of 
reason,  or  an  idea,  or  merely  a  so-called  sense-perception,  then 
of  course  apart  from  the  thinking  or  perceiving  mind  it  would 
have  no  objective  reality.  And,  even  if  it  be  only  the  basic 
substantia  or  medium  of  phenomena,  then  without  phenomena 
we  could  know  nothing  about  it,  and  for  us  at  least  it  would 
have  no  reality.  And,  as  phenomena  would  seem  to  be  the 
final  cause  of  the  existence  of  matter,  it  would  appear  that 
it  must  have  come  into  existence  with  and  for  phenomena 
and  that  with  the  passing  of  phenomena  it  also  would  pass 
away.  Thus,  even  these  preliminary  considerations  as  to  the 
nature  of  matter  almost  necessarily  imply  that,  however  re- 
garded,  it  had  a  beginning,  and   that  it  will  have  an  end. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  consider  the  principal  definite 
theories  as  to  the  nature  of  matter  that  have  been  offered; 
namely,  the  atomic  theory,  the  centre-of-force  theory,  the 
vortex-atom  theory,  the  electrical  theory  and  the  ether  theory. 


192  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

I    THE    ATOMIC    OR    PARTICLE    THEORY    OF 

MATTER 

The  quite  general  verdict  of  science  has  hitherto  been  that 
matter  consists  ultimately  of  infinitesimal  individual  particles, 
called  molecules,  atoms,  etc.  This  view  is  known  as  that  of 
the  discrete  or  grained  structure  of  matter,  as  against  that  of 
continuous  substance.  These  particles  of  matter  are  supposed 
to  be  so  infinitesimally  small  that  it  would  require  a  vast  num- 
ber of  them  together  to  become  visible  under  the  most  power- 
ful modern  microscope. 

We  rather  like  to  retain  the  name  atomic  theory,  as  it  has 
become  venerable  by  age.  Long  before  the  days  of  modern 
chemistry  it  was  already  hoary  with  antiquity.  Beginning 
with  the  Greek  philosophers  Leucippus  (fl.  500  B.  C.)  and 
Democritus  (fl.  375  B.C.),  and  somewhat  more  fully  de- 
veloped by  the  great  Roman  natural  philosopher  Lucretius 
(97-53?  B.  C),  this  theory,  under  slightly  different  forms, 
has  had  its  adherents  among  philosophers  ever  since.  In  its 
modern  form  as  a  chemical  theory  its  founder  was  Dalton 
( 1 766-1 844),  who  found  it  a  necessary  deduction  from  the 
law  of  multiple  chemical  proportions  in  the  union  of  the  ele- 
ments into  compounds. 

With  the  development  of  modern  chemistry  this  theory  has, 
at  least  as  to  some  of  its  elements,  passed  from  the  sphere  of 
theory  to  that  of  scientific  knowledge.  And  the  various  other 
scientific  theories  of  matter  are  to  a  large  extent  only  modifica- 
tions of  this  old  theory.  This,  therefore,  expresses  the  hitherto 
rather  generally  accepted  conception  of  scientists  as  to  the  na- 
ture of  matter.  It,  of  course,  is  also  the  basis  of  modern 
atheistic  materialism. 

According  to  this  theory  of  matter,  in  its  later  development, 
corpuscles  combine  into  atoms,  atoms  combine  into  molecules, 
and  these  combine  into  masses.  And  thus  these  minute  par- 
ticles in  their  combinations  constitute  the  material  universe. 
Thus,  the  common  substance  called  water  is  a  combination  of 
hydrogen  and  oxygen,  in  the  proportion  of  two  to  one,  and  is 
therefore  expressed  H2O,  two  atoms  of  hydrogen  uniting 
with  one  atom  of  oxygen  to  form  a  molecule  of  water. 
And,  no  matter  what  the  mechanical  methods  employed,  all 
divisions  of  water,  however  minute,  must  result  in  water  still. 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  193 

But,  by  the  application  of  chemical  methods,  the  water  mole- 
cules can  be  split  into  their  constituents,  two  atoms  of  hydro- 
gen and  one  of  oxygen;  and  these  can  thus  again  also  be  re- 
united into  their  compound,  water. 

Atoms  of  the  eighty  or  more  different  chemical  elements 
have  selective  tendencies  to  unite  in  various  proportions  or 
numbers  with  one  another,  some  having  greater  ranges  of 
affinities  and  some  smaller.  And,  of  course,  all  atoms  of  the 
same  element  are  apparently  alike,  while  atoms  of  different 
elements  are  different  in  size,  chemical  affinity  and  other  prop- 
erties. Some  enter  into  a  much  greater  number  of  substances, 
according  to  their  selective  affinities.  Moreover,  from  the 
revelations  of  the  spectroscope  it  is  definitely  determined  that 
the  same  elements,  in  varying  proportions,  enter  into  combina- 
tions to  form  the  earth,  the  planets,  ar«d  the  sun  and  stars. 
Thus,  the  whole  material  universe  is  apparently  composed  of 
the  same  material  substances;  and  it  is  undoubtedly  throughout 
atomic  or  grained  in  its  ultimate  structure.  These  infinitesimal 
particles,  bound  together  by  mysterious  laws  of  so-called  at- 
traction under  different  forms,  constitute  the  foundation  stones 
of  the  universe.  Further  details  of  this  theory  are  not  neces- 
sary here,  for  our  consideration  has  to  do  with  this  and  other 
theories  as  they  affect  the  problem  of  creation. 

Upon  the  basis  of  this  theory  of  matter,  no  matter  how 
many  of  these  injfinitesimal  particles  and  how  great  their  num- 
ber of  combinations,  they  could  not  constitute  an  infinite,  as 
already  shown.  Nor  could  they  of  themselves  have  produced 
the  universe.  For  each  particle  required  the  creative  act  of 
a  transcendent  Will  to  call  it  into  being;  and  for  every  mo- 
tion there  must  have  been  an  external  cause — the  same  tran- 
scendent Will.  Even  the  law  of  the  so-called  conservation  of 
matter  implies  its  creation,  as  nothing  can  either  produce  or 
destroy  itself.  Moreover,  a  thing  must  first  exist  before  it 
can  be  conserved.  The  law  of  inertia  implies  that  its  motions 
came  from  some  initial  impelling  force ;  as,  unless  thus  impelled 
by  an  external  force,  it  would  forever  have  remained  at  rest. 
Therefore,  the  atomic  theory  of  matter  and  the  universe  necessi- 
tates an  absolute  personal  Will  as  the  creative  Cause. 

Furthermore,  according  to  this  theory  of  matter,  these  ulti- 
mate particles  are  unchangeable  by  any  physical  processes,  both 
as    to    their    substance    and    as    to    their    intrinsic    properties. 


194  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

Therefore,  this  very  unchangeableness  by  any  forces  of  nature 
should  be  sufficient  proof  that  they  are  not  the  product  of  any 
forces  of  nature.  This  is  really  equivalent  to  saying  that  they 
were  not  self-created,  for  their  existence  itself  forms  the  ma- 
terial basis  of  nature  and  constitutes  the  basis  of  operation  for 
nature's  forces  and  laws.  Moreover,  the  wonderful  way  in 
which  these  particles  are  fitted  together  and  combined  into 
molecules,  etc.,  shows  that  they  are  meant  for  one  another 
in  the  building  up  of  this  wonderful  cosmos,  and  that  they 
must  therefore  have  been  created  for  that  purpose,  according 
to  some  wonderful  plan.  But  of  this  we  shall  speak  more  fully 
in  our  next  chapter. 

The  contention  of  modern  materialistic  pantheism  that  this 
material  cosmos  is  Itself  God,  can,  of  course,  not  stand  In  the 
light  of  the  atomic  theor^^ ;  for  no  number  of  such  particles 
and  their  combinations  can  constitute  an  infinite.  The  uni- 
verse is  thus  necessarily  finite,  and  therefore  limited  and  rela- 
tive— as  also  demonstrated  in  former  chapters.  And  such  a 
limited  and  relative  existence  would  imply  something  beyond 
It  by  which  it  is  limited  or  to  which  it  is  related  as  a  dependent. 
And,  as  only  an  infinite  can  be  unlimited  and  absolute,  such 
only  can  be  conceived  of  as  Deity.  Moreover,  as  shown  else- 
where, to  make  of  the  material  universe  God,  would  be  to 
multiply  the  number  of  deities  to  as  many  as  there  are  Indi- 
vidual molecules,  atoms,  corpuscles,  etc.,  throughout  its  mighty 
reaches.  But,  Deity  must  necessarily  mean  unity  of  individual- 
ity and  of  action,  as  well  as  unity  of  essence,  every  element 
of  which  the  atomic  or  particle  theory  of  matter  contradicts. 
Hence,  the  atomic  universe  cannot  be  God.  Therefore,  ac- 
cording to  the  atomic  theory,  there  must  be  a  Deity  beyond, 
and  most  assuredly  also  within,  the  universe.  Who  is  its  Cause 
as  Creator  and   Sustalner. 

Thus,  even  the  very  ultimate  particles  bear  witness  that 
they  had  a  beginning,  and  like  silent  index-fingers  point  back 
to  their  Creator  Who  designed  them  and  gave  them  their 
being.  And  their  ceaseless  revolutions  and  marvelous  harmony 
in  intricate  combinations,  add  to  this  silent  evidence  of  the 
existing  particles  their  eloquent  testimony  not  only  that  these 
particles  have  their  existence  from  a  Creator  God,  but  also 
that  their  every  motion  is  by  His  throbbing  energy. 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  195 

II    THE   CENTRE-OF-FORCE   THEORY   OF 

MATTER 

A  very  ingenious  theory  of  matter  was  the  one  suggested  by 
Ruggiere  G.  Boscovich  (1711-1787),  and  more  fully  elabo- 
rated bv  Michael  Faraday  (1797-1867),  et  aL.  and  considered 
plausible  by  such  men  as  John  Stuart  Mill  (1806- 1873)  and 
Thomas  Huxley  (1825-1895)-  According  to  this  theory,  what 
we  know  as  matter  is  nothing  but  force.  What  the  atomist 
calls  the  ultimate  particles  of  matter,  the  advocate  of  this 
theory  considers  to  be  only  centres  of  force.  The  ultimate  par- 
ticle is  considered  merely  as  an  unextended  point,  not  a  ma- 
terial substance,  and  therefore  nothing  but  energy.  It  may 
be  said  that  this  theory  was  in  a  sense  foreshadowed  or  antici- 
pated by  the  idealistic  philosophers  Descartes,  Locke,  Berkeley 
and  Fichte,  w^ho  regarded  what  we  speak  of  as  material  sub- 
stance as  merely  combinations  of  qualities  or  phenomena.  With 
them,  the  one  entity,  or  the  only  reality,  was  the  soul. 

This  theory  would,  of  course,  remove  such  difficulties  as 
some  supposed  reason  why  the  ultimate  particle  or  the  so- 
called  atom  could  not  be  divided.  If  it  is  material,  it  must 
have  extension,  and  therefore  some  solidity  and  surface.  Why 
it  would  not  therefore  be  divisible,  no  one  could  tell.  Then, 
too,  if  the  atoms  be  material  substances,  and  all  of  them  in- 
dividually and  unitedly  in  motion,  there  must  be  vacuity  be- 
tween them.  And  the  supposition  that  the  ether  fills  this 
vacuity  would  only  hand  on  the  mystery  of  vacuity  from  the 
inter-atomic  spaces  to  the  spaces  between  some  hypothetical 
ether  particles.  And  this,  too,  would  apparently  be  equally  in- 
explicable. This  much,  therefore,  this  theory  has  to  com- 
mend itself. 

It  is  not  for  us  here  to  enter  much  into  a  discussion  of 
such  a  theory.  But  the  natural  inference  seems  to  be  that,  as 
motion  implies  something  moved,  there  could  be  no  energy 
without  a  moving  substance.  There  could  apparently  be  no 
activity  without  passivity.  Therefore,  to  speak  of  abstract 
centres  of  force,  would  seem  to  be  to  speak  of  an  impossi- 
bility. How  could  there  be  centres  of  force  without  a  pas- 
sive basis  in  which  to  operate?  There  could  be  no  energy, 
apart  from  will,  without  a  moving  or  residing  medium.  In 
fact,  the  human  will,  as  we  know  it  in  its  present  state,  always 


196  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

operates  through  its  physical  basis.  And,  as  for  energy  in 
the  case  of  a  disembodied  or  unembodied  spirit,  it  would  be 
highly  improbable  that  the  term  energy,  as  we  know  it  in 
physical  nature,  would  fully  apply.  Indeed,  the  very  existence 
of  friction,  not  to  speak  of  extension  and  other  properties, 
should  make  this  hypothesis  of  centres  of  force  practically 
untenable;  for  these  properties  could  hardly  be  ascribed  to 
pure  force  or  energy. 

But,  the  point  for  us  to  make  is,  that,  even  if  this  theory  of 
matter  were  correct,  it  would  not  invalidate  our  conclusions. 
On  the  contrary,  it  would  rather  all  the  more  firmly  estab- 
lish them.  If  the  supposed  atoms  were  only  centres  of  force, 
they  might  not  themselves  even  be  force.  Indeed,  we  can 
really  conceive  of  will  alone  as  a  cause,  or  a  real  centre,  of 
force.  Therefore,  this  theory  would,  upon  its  very  surface, 
lead  us  to  that  Will  by  which  all  things  must  have  come  to 
be.  And,  if  the  whole  universe  were  only  a  manifestation,  or  a 
series  of  manifestations,  of  force  or  energy,  then  the  cessa- 
tion of  motion  in  the  dissipation  of  energy,  as  fully  explained 
in  our  last  chapter,  would  certainly  mean  the  end  of  the 
universe.  And,  to  say  that  the  energy  would  still  remain, 
only  unavailable,  in  another  form,  would  simply^  be  begging 
the  question.  In  this  case,  upon  the  basis  of  this  theory  of 
matter,  cessation  of  motion  would  mean  cessation  of  energy. 
Potential  energy  could  not  even  be  spoken  of,  as  there  would 
be  no  medium,  or  positions  of  matter,  for  such  supposed 
potential  energy,  as  there  would  be  no  matter.  Surely,  anni- 
hilation of  motion  would  then  mean  annihilation  of  energy; 
and  thus,  according  to  this  theory  of  matter,  annihilation  of 
motion  or  energy  would  mean  the  annihilation  of  the  uni- 
verse. 

And,  what  is  more,  such  energy  could  not  have  been  self- 
originated.  Even  apart  from  the  law  of  inertia,  if  considered 
applicable,  the  law  of  causality  would  forbid  any  other  con- 
clusion. A  Will  to  energize  all  could  have  been  the  only 
possible  and  natural  cause  of  its  origin.  Therefore,  according 
to  this  theory  of  matter,  universal  annihilation  of  what  we 
call  matter  or  the  physical  universe,  would  be  its  inevitable 
end.  And  the  time  of  this  end  might  almost  be  foretold  from 
calculations  based  upon  data  at  hand.  Hence,  according  to 
this  centre-of-force  theory  of  matter,  the  universe  would  neces- 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  197 

sarily  be  temporal.     It  would  have  an  end;  and  it  must  also 
have  had  a  beginning. 

Ill     THE  VORTEX-ATOM  THEORY  OF  MATTER 

Another  theory  of  matter  is  one  that  was  hinted  at  by 
Hobbes  (1588-1679),  and  somewhat  more  fully  developed  by 
Sir  William  Thompson,  later  Lord  Kelvin  (1824- 1907).  Ac- 
cording to  this  theory,  the  so-called  atoms  are  small  vortex- 
rings  of  rotations  of  a  perfectly  continuous  fluid  filling  all 
space.  This  is,  therefore,  in  a  sense  also  a  modified  form 
of  the  venerable  atomic  theory.  It  differs  from  it  on  the 
subject  of  the  divisibility  of  the  ultimate  atom,  as  also  on  its 
supposed  exact  behavior.  According  to  the  old  atomic  theory, 
the  ultimate  atom  was  supposed  to  be  indivisible  because  of 
its  being  the  ultimate  unit  of  matter,  that  by  its  very  nature 
would  resist  division,  perhaps  because  of  a  certain  hardness. 
The  word  coherence  would  not  do,  because  it  implies  the  pres- 
ence or  union  of  more  than  one  to  form  a  coherence;  and 
this  would  be  contrary  to  the  old  idea  of  an  ultimate  unit. 

According  to  the  vortex-atom  theory,  the  supposed  ultimate 
atom  is  not  indivisible  because  of  its  hardness,  but  because  of 
its  non-resistance  to  pressure  or  force,  by  virtue  of  its  vortex- 
motion  in  a  perfect  fluid.  Such  motion  in  perfect  contiguity 
to  similar  motion  all  around  it  and  continuous  throughout  the 
vast  stretches  of  space-filling  ether,  is  thus  supposed  to  cause 
the  resistance  or  evasion  necessary  to  make  its  further  divi- 
sions impossible.  It  would,  therefore,  be  virtually  equivalent 
to  dividing  space   itself. 

This  theory  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  very  ingenious  one.  If 
it  be  contended,  as  has  been  done  by  some  of  its  advocates, 
that  the  so-called  vortex-atoms  or  vortex-rings,  are  nothing 
but  motion,  then  with  the  cessation  of  motion,  toward  which 
universal  nature  is  tending,  as  we  have  shown  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  all  these  vortex-rings  or  vortex-atoms  would 
disappear.  This  would  necessarily  be  the  end  of  the  so-called 
material  universe.  And,  if  these  vortex-atoms  were  in  constant 
motion  within  the  ether,  ethereal  friction,  however  infinitesi- 
mal, would  certainly  eventually  cause  all  motion  to  cease. 
And,  that  there  is  friction  in  the  ether,  is  evident  from  the 
pressure,  and  the  time   element  in  the  propagation,  of  light, 


19^  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

heat,  etc.  Therefore,  te?nporality  must  be  written  across  na- 
ture, on  the  basis  of  this  theory.  Indeed,  even  if  the  vortex- 
atoms,  and  from  them  the  visible  universe  itself,  were  a  de- 
velopment from  the  ether,  as  has  also  been  held,  even  then 
friction  would  have  to  be  postulated  to  account  for  such  a 
development,  as  development  always  implies  friction.  But, 
as  friction  in  the  ether  would  nullify  the  idea  of  perfect 
fluidity,  the  theory  here  already  would  fail.  Moreover,  this 
very  presence  of  friction  would  show  a  time  element  in  such 
development  of  the  universe.  And  this,  in  its  turn,  would 
necessarily  imply  that  that  development  must  have  had  a  be- 
ginning, or  else  it  would  long  ago  have  been  completed. 
Hence,  even  this  points  to  a  beginning  of  the  universe,  and 
therefore  to  its  creation  in  time  out  of  nothing. 

In  its  ultimate  analysis,  this  theory  would,  of  course,  appa- 
rently also  leave  the  atom  a  substance.  Its  vortex-motion 
would  imply  a  moving  something,  even  if  it  be  but  the  ether 
itself.  But  its  weakness  seems  to  lie  in  a  palpable  contradic- 
tion ;  namely,  that  a  continuous  substance  could  consist  of  an 
indefinite  number  of  such  vortex-atoms  or  vortex-motions.  If 
the  ether  were  so  composed,  it  could  surely  not  be  spoken  of 
as  a  continuous  medium.  But,  even  if  this  were  held,  the 
fact  would  still  remain  that,  as  you  could  not  have  an  infinite 
nnmber  of  such  supposed  vortex-rings  or  vortex-atoms,  it 
would  necessarily  remain  a  finite,  limited,  non-absolute,  tem- 
poral, and  therefore  created  entity.  And,  such  great  forces 
as  electricity  and  gravitation  could  apparently  not  be  explained 
without  assuming  some  h57pothetical  independently  operating 
external  corpuscles  in  coincident  but  smaller  vortex-motions. 
Then,  what  or  whence  these  hypothetical  smaller  vortex-atoms 
or  vortex-motions? 

Moreover,  a  perfectly  continuous  medium  could  not  pos- 
sibly be  conceived  of  as  being  in  motion  in  its  contiguous  parts, 
though  as  a  finite  unitary  whole  it  might  be  conceived  of  as 
in  motion.  But,  of  course,  such  a  universe  as  a  moving  uni- 
tary whole  could  not  be  infinite.  An  infinite  could  not  be 
conceived  of  as  in  motion;  as  motion  would  imply  an  external 
something  within  which,  or  with  reference  to  which,  as  an 
infinite  static,  or  other  relatively  moving  finite  existence,  such 
motion  would  take  place.  This  external  something  would 
thus  be  a  limitation  to  such  a  moving  universe,  and  prove  it 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  199 

to  be  finite.  An  infinite  would  necessarily  have  to  be  mo- 
tionless. And,  again,  an  infinite  could  not  consist  of  parts 
any  more  than  it  could  consist  of  particles.  It  would  have 
to  be  an  undivided  unity.  To  an  infinite  there  would  be, 
no  beginning  in  extension  nor  an  end.  It  could  not  be  conceived 
of  as  having  an  up  or  a  down,  a  right  or  a  left,  a  before 
or  a  behind,  an  east  or  a  west,  a  north  or  a  south. 

As  to  an  infinite  there  could  be  no  parts,  so  to  it  there 
could  be  no  successions.  As  to  an  infinite  there  could  be  no 
successions,  nor  revolutions,  no  relations  nor  changes,  so  to  it 
there  could  be  no  time,  since  time  is  the  measure  of  succes- 
sions. The  measure  of  the  duration  of  its  existence,  if  it  could 
be  spoken  of  as  a  measure,  would  therefore  have  to  be  eternity. 
An  infinite  would  therefore  have  to  be  timeless,  as  well  as 
motionless.  Conversely,  a  timeless  existence  would  have  to 
be  infinite.  And,  furthermore,  an  infinite  could  not  have  been 
or  be  created,  for  creation  implies  an  external  existence  within 
which  such  creation  takes  place  or  its  product  can  exist,  even 
apart  from  the  creative  Cause.  This  is  also  confirmed  by  the 
fact — as  shown  above — that  an  infinite  must  necessarily  be 
eternal,  as  creation  implies  a  time  or  beginning  of  creation, 
before  which  its  infinite  creative  cause  must  have  existed. 
Then,  too,  an  infinite  must  necessarily  be  absolute,  as  shown 
elsewhere;  and  absoluteness  implies  self-existence  and  eternal 
duration. 

Therefore,  even  upon  the  basis  of  the  vortex-atom  theory, 
the  universe  would  have  to  be  finite,  temporal,  and  therefore 
created — and  of  course  necessarily  created  by  an  external 
Power  or  Will,  ex  nihilo.  This  reasoning  would  also  apply 
to  the  other  two  theories  of  matter  already  discussed,  as 
well  as  to  the  two  yet  to  be  considered. 

As  thus  shown,  such  a  supposed  continuous  medium  for 
the  vortex-atom  motions,  or  the  associated  universe,  would 
have  to  be  finite  and  temporal,  and  therefore  a  created  exist- 
ence. This  fact  is  also  fully  attested  by  a  further  considera- 
tion of  these  supposed  motions;  namely,  that  these  could  no 
more  have  been  self-originated  than  could  the  basic  moving 
stuff,  if  it  might  be  called  so.  Thus,  though  this  theory  may 
seem  to  shift  further  back  a  great  First  Cause,  it  no  more 
accounts  for   existing   nature  without   an   omnipotent   creative 


200  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

Will  than  does  any  other. 

It  must,  of  course,  be  remembered  that  all  these  three 
theories  assume  an  ultimate  something  merely  as  a  working 
hypothesis  to  explain  phenomena.  In  their  last  analj^sis  all 
are  therefore  finally  based  upon  scientific  faith  no  less  real, 
and  no  less  helpless  of  actual  demonstration,  than  the  Chris- 
tian's faith  in  the  revealed  fact  of  the  creation  of  the  world 
by  a  transcendent  Deity. 

IV    THE   ELECTRICAL  THEORY   OF   MATTER 

We  have  thus  far  considered  three  theories  of  matter — the 
atomic  theory,  the  centre-oj -force  theory  and  the  vortex-atom 
theory.  We  have  seen  that,  instead  of  strengthening  the  con- 
tention that  the  universe  is  infinite,  eternal  and  therefore  un- 
created, the  whole  weight  of  the  evidence  according  to  these 
theories  is  against  such  a  contention.  In  other  words,  upon 
the  basis  of  these  three  theories,  the  universe  must  be  finite, 
temporal  and  created.  There  are  still  two  other  theories  of 
matter  that  we  shall  consider.  And,  because  of  their  very 
great  importance  for  our  subject,  thus  necessitating  a  fair  un- 
derstanding, we  shall  consider  them  more  at  length  and  in 
detail  than  the  other  three.  In  this  subdivision  we  shall  dis- 
cuss the  electrical  theory,  developed  in  connection  with  the 
remarkable  recent  discoveries  as  to  radioactivity,  etc. 

I       STEPS    IN    THE    DISCOVERY    OF    RADIUM 

The  discovery  of  the  X-rays  in  1895  was  the  opening  wedge 
to  a  number  of  nature's  secrets.  Although  several  earlier 
chemical  discoveries  had  paved  the  way  for  this  one,  and  had 
even  foreshadowed  some  of  its  phenomena,  the  discovery  of 
these  waves  by  Roentgen  marked  a  definite  transition  point 
from  the  older  to  the  newer  chemistry.  Chemistry  has  now 
truly  become  the  astronomy  of  the  infinitesimal. 

Although  these  X-rays  somewhat  resemble  waves  of  light,  it 
was  soon  learned  that,  because  they  cannot  be  reflected,  re- 
fracted nor  polarized,  they  are  perhaps  not  exactly  of  the  nature 
of  light;  and  it  was  supposed,  therefore,  that  they  are  prob- 
ably not  waves  of  ether.  It  was,  therefore,  seen  that,  in  deal- 
ing with  these  subtle  waves,  science  was  dealing  with  a  new 
set  of  phenomena,   and  perhaps — as  was  at  first  suggested — 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  20i 

even  with  a  new  medium  for  wave  transmission.  A  great 
field  for  scientific  speculation  was  thus  opened  up. 

While  authorities  were  for  some  time  divided  as  to  the  real 
nature  of  these  X-rays,  the  prevailing  opinion  now  is  that 
they  do  consist  of  transverse  waves  within  the  ether,  some- 
what similar  to  light  waves  of  short  wave-length.  They  un- 
doubtedly belong  to  the  unexplored  end  of  the  ultra- 
violet region.  These  are  not,  however,  like  those  of  light, 
a  regular  succession  of  waves,  but  rather  a  series  of  irregular 
pulses.  The  ether-pulse  theory  of  the  X-rays  does  not,  how- 
ever, explain  all  their  phenomena  in  passing  through  matter. 
It  is,  therefore,  held  by  Bragg,  and  others,  that  they  consist  of 
minute  corpuscles,  as  better  explaining  all  the  phenomena. 
This  theory  was  proposed  by  Bragg  in  various  issues  of  the 
Philosophic  Magazine,  1 907- 1 910.  According  to  this  author- 
ity, these  X-ray  corpuscles  are  neutral  doublets,  proceeding 
with  great  velocities. 

The  phosphorescence  on  the  glass  walls  soon  led  Becquerel 
to  the  discovery  of  the  rays  that  bear  his  name.  These  were 
found  to  be  due  to  the  natural  radioactivity  of  uranium,  and 
to  resemble  the  X-rays.  Deeply  interested  in  this  discovery, 
the  Curies  tested  different  uranium  ores,  and  found  different 
ores  having  different  degrees  of  radioactivity,  some  of  them 
having  even  more  radioactivity  than  pure  uranium.  That  this 
unusual  radioactivity  was  not  due  to  uranium  itself,  but  that 
it  was  due  to  some  hitherto  unknown  element,  was  therefore 
certain.  To  isolate  this  element  was  the  task  set  before 
themselves  by  the  Curies.  After  elaborate  tests  with  large 
amounts  of  pitchblende,  they  finally  succeeded  in  separating 
this  substance  in  the  form  of  a  salt,  1895 — though  as  a  pure 
element  it  was  apparently  not  isolated  until  191 1,  when  Mme. 
Curie  finally  succeeded  in  doing  so.  Because  of  its  marvelous 
amount  of  radioactivity  they  very  appropriately  called  it 
radium.  It  was  soon  found  that  this  substance  has,  according 
to  some  estimates,  one  and  a  half  million  times  as  great  a 
radioactivity  as  uranium.  It  should,  however,  be  said  that  for 
the  extracting  of  only  the  very  minutest  amount  of  radium  it 
requires  tons  of  pitchblende.  Indeed,  only  a  comparatively 
few  ounces  have  as  yet  been  isolated.  It  is  said  that  radium 
is  as  rare  in  pitchblende  as  gold  is  in  sea  water.  Hence,  its 
great  cost,  which  is  several  million  dollars  an  ounce. 


202  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

2      THE    VARIOUS    RAYS     OF     RADIUM 

In   this   wonderful   element   we  have   a  complexity   of   phe- 
nomena that  are  full  of  meaning.     It  gives  forth  three  princi- 
pal kinds  of  waves  or  radiations,  called  alpha,  beta  and  gamma 
rays,  by  Rutherford,  to  which  have  been  added  the  delta  rays. 
The  alpha  rays  are  composed  of  escaping  minute  particles, 
which  have  been  found  to  be  atoms  of  helium,  whose  atomic 
weight  in  terms  of  hydrogen  is  4.     Their  velocity  is  calculated 
to  be  from  about   12,000  miles  to  20,000  miles  a  second,  or 
averaging  nearly  one  tenth  of  the  velocity  of  light    (Ruther- 
ford has   lately  placed  this  at    10,000  miles).     Though  these 
alpha  particles    (helium  atoms)    are  very  minute,  their  kinetic 
energy  is  comparatively  very  great.     Their  power  of  penetra- 
tion,  of   course,   varies  with   the   density   of    the   matter   pene- 
trated.    Rutherford  estimates  that  a  cannon  ball  moving  with 
the  same  velocity  would  have  many  thousand  times  as  much 
energy  as  would  be  necessary  to  melt  it  and  dissipate  it  into 
vapor.      But,    on    account   of    the    relatively    larger    mass    and 
smaller  velocities   of   these   alpha   particles   than    those   of   the 
particles  of   the  other  rays  to  be   discussed,   their   penetrating 
power  is  not  as  great.     They  apparently  pass  through  atoms  of 
matter  in  their  path,  thus  ionizing  them. 

The  beta  rays  are  apparently  composed  of  sub-atomic  cor- 
puscles, which  have  been  called  electrons.  These  probably 
escape  singly  from  their  atoms,  and  are  very  much  smaller 
than  the  alpha  particles  (helium  atoms).  The  helium  atom  is 
a  little  over  lO'^  cm.  in  diameter  (more  correctly  probably 
about  1.25X10'^  cm.);  or  it  would  require  nearly  250,000,- 
000  helium  atoms  side  by  side  to  measure  an  inch.  And  yet, 
from  their  velocity  and  deflection,  etc.,  the  electrons  are  cal- 
culated to  measure  only  about  lO"^^  cm.  in  diameter.  In  act- 
ual size  the  helium  atom  must  therefore  have  a  diameter 
near  10^,  or  100,000,  times  as  great  as  that  of  an  electron; 
or  it  would  be  nearly  10^^,  or  one  quadrillion,  times  as  large 
as  an  electron.  And,  therefore,  as  a  helium  atom  contains 
about  6,800  (4X1,700)  electrons,  the  distance  between  the 
revolving  electrons— if  they  were  uniformly  distributed 
throughout  this  atom — would  be  relatively  very  great.  This 
distance  between  the  electrons,  upon  the  basis  given,  we  find  to 
be  approximately  4,000  times  their  diameters.     What  an  in- 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  203 

conceivable  number  of  electrons  In  a  minute  particle  of  radium 
weighing  but  a  gram ! 

It  is,  of  course,  readily  seen  that,  because  of  their  smallness, 
as  well  as  because  of  their  great  velocity  of  an  average  of 
about  90,000  miles  a  second  (ranging  from  about  40,000  miles 
to  170,000  miles),  these  beta  particles  (electrons)  have  a 
much  greater  power  of  penetration  than  the  alpha  particles 
(helium  atoms).  They  can  penetrate  one  fourth  of  an  inch  of 
lead.  And,  of  course,  of  these  beta  particles  or  electrons,  every 
atom  of  radium  contains  probably  upw^ards  of  350,000  (about 
226X1700),  each  revolving  on  an  average  of  about  90,000 
to  100,000  miles  a  second. 

These  beta  particles  are  found  to  be  the  same  as  the  Cath- 
ode-rays of  Crookes'  so-called  "Radiant  Matter,"  obtained  by 
passing  an  electric  current  through  a  highly  evacuated  vessel. 
And,  even  here  the  electrons  can  be  made  to  attain  a  velocity 
of  10,000  miles  a  second — and  even  much  more,  according  to 
some   authorities. 

The  gamma  rays  are  apparently  Irregular  pulses  in  the  ether 
with  approximately  the  same  velocity  as  that  of  light.  They 
are  considered  to  be  the  same  as  the  X-rays,  but  with  even 
greater  power  of  penetration  than  those  artificially  produced 
rays.  These  gamma  rays  can  penetrate  about  two  feet  of  iron. 
They  occur  only  in  conjunction  with  the  beta  rays,  by  the  im- 
pact of  which  they  are  undoubtedly  caused.  Indeed,  Ruther- 
ford lately  has  come  to  the  belief  that  they  are  from  distur- 
bances in  the  ring  of  electrons  nearest  the  positive  nucleus, 
to  be  considered  later.  The  penetrating  powers  of  these  three 
kinds  of  raj'S,  considered  above,  are  about  as  i,  100,  10,000 — 
the  alpha  rays  penetrating  about  -5^^  of  an  Inch  of  alumi- 
num, the  beta  rays  about  \  of  an  Inch,  and  the  gamma  rays 
about  20  inches. 

The  delta  rays  are  believed  to  be  slow-moving  beta  particles 
(electrons)  struck  off  from  ordinary  matter  by  the  impact  of 
the  other  rays.     Their  velocity  is  about  25,000  miles  a  second. 

The  recoil  rays  constitute  a  fifth  kind  of  radiation  often 
spoken  of.  These  are  due  to  the  recoil  of  the  residuum  of 
atoms  sending  forth  the  alpha  and  beta  particles.  And,  as  the 
alpha  particles  consist  of  helium  atoms  and  are,  therefore, 
much  larger  than  the  electrons  of  the  beta  rays,  this  recoil 
radiation  caused  by  the  expelling  of  the  alpha  particles  is  much 


204  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

greater  than  that  caused  by  the  expelling  of  the  beta  particles. 
As  the  atomic  weight  of  radium  is  226  and  that  of  helium  is 
4,  it  is  readily  seen  that  this  recoil  radiation  has  a  velocity  a 
little  less  than  one  seventh  of  that  of  the  alpha  particles 
themselves  (^MV^  =  ^mv^ ;  or  i  X  222V2  =  1  X  4v' ;  or 
55iV^=v2,  or  Vzzz^y).  But,  as  the  electrons  are  so  very 
much  smaller  than  the  helium  atoms,  the  recoil  radiation 
from  the  expulsion  of  the  beta  particles  is  of  little  practical 
importance. 

In  this  element  radium  we  have  an  additional  light  thrown 
upon  the  subject  of  energy.  It  is  found  that  the  temperature 
of  radium  is  always  higher  than  that  of  surrounding  objects, 
and  that  it  gives  out  several  million  times  as  much  heat  as  any 
chemical  reaction  known.  Mme.  Curie  and  Laborde  calcu- 
lated that  the  heat  from  radium  in  an  hour  would  raise  its 
own  weight  of  water  from  the  freezing  point  to  the  boiling 
point  and  then  keep  it  boiling  more  than  a  thousand  years. 
The  heat  from  the  radium  emanation  is  said  by  some  actually 
to  be  over  3,500,000  times  that  of  any  known  chemical  re- 
action. This  heat  is  undoubtedly,  in  its  last  analysis,  from  the 
intrinsic  energy  of  its  electrons,  which  apparently  move  faster 
than  electrons  of  other  tested  substances.  Hence,  the  greater 
radioactivity  of  radium  and  its  greater  tendency  to  disinte- 
grate, a  fact  of  which  we  shall  presently  speak.  An  idea  of  the 
energy  represented  by  a  revolving  electron  may  be  formed 
from  the  fact  that,  according  to  a  calculation  lately  made  by 
Rutherford,  it  would  require  ,two  million  volts  of  electricity 
to  set  in  motion  an  electron  with  a  velocity  of  98%  that  of 
light.  This  energy  is  regarded,  therefore,  as  residing  in  the 
atom,  as  either  kinetic  or  potential  energy.  The  atom  is, 
therefore,  a  vast  infinitesimal  storehouse  of  energy,  caused  by 
the  enormous  velocities  of  its  multitude  of  these  sub-atomic 
particles.  An  additional  element  in  this  intrinsic  atomic  en- 
ergy may  be  due  to  the  passages  of  the  charged  particles 
through  intense  intra-atomic  electric  fields. 

3  RADIOACTIVITY  DUE  TO  DISINTEGRATION  OF  ATOMS,  SUC- 
CESSIVE DISINTEGRATIONS  RESULTING  IN  DIFFERENT 
SUBSTANCES 

The  above  paragraph  brings  us  to  the  more  definite  point  to 
be  made  from  our  consideration  of  radium,  the  point  for  which 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  205 

the  foregoing  discussion  was  to  prepare  the  way.  Radioactive 
substances  are  continually  disintegrating,  and  to  some  extent 
apparently  also  constantly  being  produced  again.  That  disin- 
tegration or  decomposition  is  the  correct  explanation  of  radio- 
activity was  probably  first  suggested  in  a  public  way  by  Geoffrey 
Martin  in  Chemical  News,  May  2,  1902  (Vol.  LXXXV.,  p. 
205).  And  in  1903  Rutherford  and  Soddy  also  published  their 
conviction  that  radioactivity  is  due  to  disintegration. 

Thus  it  has  more  recently  been  calculated  that  a  gram  of 
radium  gives  off  over  6X10^^  alpha  particles  (atoms  of  hel- 
ium) per  second,  while  it  gives  off  over  7X10^°  beta  particles 
(electrons)  per  second.  And  it  should  be  stated  that,  though 
this  reckless  giving  off  of  its  substance  goes  on  constantly,  it 
would  require  upwards  of  sixteen  centuries  for  this  radiation 
to  spend  even  half  of  its  resources.  It  should  also  be  said 
that  the  fact  that  helium  and  its  allied  elements  are  so  uni- 
versally found,  has  been  taken  by  some  authorities  to  indicate 
that  it  is  one  of  the  by-products  of  earth's  unmistakable  dis- 
solution. 

What  is  true  of  radium  as  an  element,  is  true  of  the  whole 
family  of  elements  to  which  radium  belongs.  There  is  an 
emanation  in  very  minute  quantities  from  radium  salts  that  is 
continually  given  forth  from  the  alpha  particles,  while  radium 
is  apparently  continually  being  restored.  And  this  emanation 
itself  spontaneously  disintegrates — giving  off  relatively  great 
energy — and  produces  or  results  in  helium,  and  a  residue  that, 
by  giving  off  alpha  or  alpha  and  beta  or  possibly  gamma  particles, 
is  transformed,  according  to  Ramsey,  Soddy,  Rutherford, 
Mme.  Curie,  et  al.,  successively  into  radium  A,  radium  B, 
radium  C,  radium  D,  radium  E  and  radium  F.  And  it  is 
believed  that  this  radium  F  eventually  results  in  lead,  which 
has  been  called  the  ashes  of  the  radium,  after  passing  through 
its  successive  emanations  or  transformations  of  several  thou- 
sand years.  The  genealogy  of  lead,  as  far  as  it  has  been 
traced,  is  thus  shown  to  be  the  following:  uranium,  uranium 
X  and  Y,  ionium,  radium,  emanation  (niton),  radium  A,  B, 
Ci  and  Cg,  D,  E,  F  (polonium),  lead.  A  very  interesting  dia- 
gram of  the  generations  of  the  radium  family  is  given  in 
Soddy's  valuable  work.  The  Interpretation  of  Radium,  page 
205.  This  table  illustrates  almost  even  the  very  processes 
of  disintegration.     Rutherford  gives  a  table  of  the  same  on 


2o6  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

page  24  of  his  great  work,  Radioactive  Substances  and  Their 
Radiations,  19 13,  not  to  speak  of  other  authorities.  A  sum- 
mary of  the  general  results  obtained  by  the  researches  of  va- 
rious investigators  will  be  of  interest. 

Uranium  1(238),  by  giving  off  alpha  rays  (6X10^  yrs.), 
yields  uranium  2;  uranium  2(234),  by  giving  off  alpha  rays 
(10^  yrs.),  not  separable  from  uranium  i,  yields  uranium  X; 
uranium  X  (230),  by  giving  off  beta  and  gamma  rays  (22 
days),  yields  uranium  Y;  uranium  Y  (230),  by  giving  off  beta 
rays  (1.5  days),  yields  ionium;  ionium  (230),  by  giving  off 
alpha  rays  (5X10*  yrs.  ?),  yields  radium;  radium  (226),  by 
giving  off  alpha  and  slow  beta  rays  (2000  yrs.),  yields  emana- 
tion (niton:  Ramsey);  emanation  (222),  by  giving  off  alpha 
rays  (3.8  days),  yields  radium  A;  radium  A (21 8),  by  giving 
off  alpha  rays  (4  minutes),  yields  radium  B;  radium  6(214), 
by  giving  off  beta  and  gamma  rays  (26  minutes),  yields  rad- 
ium C;  radium  Q  (214),  by  giving  off  alpha,  beta  and  gamma 
rays  (19  min.),  yields  radium  C^'y  vadium  03(210),  by  giving 
off  beta  rays  (1.4  minutes),  yields  radium  D  (radio-lead)  ;  rad- 
ium D(2io),  by  giving  off  slow  beta  rays  (16.5  years),  yields 
radium  E;  radium  E(2io),  by  giving  off  beta  and  gamma  rays 
(5  days),  yields  radium  F  (polonium);  radium  F(2io)  ;  by 
giving  off  alpha  rays  (136  days),  yields  radium  G  (lead  ? 
206). 

The  numbers  within  parentheses,  after  the  names  of  the 
successive  elements,  Indicate  the  atomic  weights  In  terms  of  the 
weight  of  hydrogen,  given  In  'whole  numbers  for  simplicity, 
while  the  approximate  half-life  period,  or  period  of  half-decay 
or  half-disintegration,  Is  given  In  parentheses  after  the  words 
rays.  It  will  be  noticed,  of  course,  that  w^here  a  difference 
of  4  in  atomic  weights  Is  found  in  two  successive  elements, 
it  is  due  to  the  disintegration  from  the  separation  of  alpha 
particles  or  helium  atoms,  whose  atomic  weight  is  4.  The 
loss  in  weight  by  the  disintegration  from  the  separation  of  the 
beta  and  gamma  rays,  because  of  their  smallness,  is,  however, 
so  small  as  to  be  negligible,  and  can  therefore  not  thus  be  in- 
dicated. The  so-called  half-life  period  Is  given,  because  the 
disintegration  apparently  proceeds  in  such  a  way  as  to  leave 
a  residue  at  each  successive  step,  which  acts  as  a  whole  like  the 
original  amount.  Thus,  the  disintegration  might  be  regarded 
as  reducing  it  to  half  the  original;  and  this  remaining  half 


Evidence  from  the  "Nature  of  Matter  207 

js  similarly  reduced  to  half,  and  this  remaining  half  to  half 
its  amount,  etc.,  indefinitely.  The  tabulation  of  uranium  X 
and  Y,  and  of  radium  Cj  and  Co,  might  be  regarded  as  not 
strictly  illustrating  the  process. 

It  might  be  said  that,  though  different  eminent  chemists 
have  reached  slightly  different  conclusions  as  to  life  periods — 
and  other  details — as  to  all  the  main  facts  all  are  in  almost 
perfect  agreement.  Thus,  the  half-life  period  of  radium,  as 
found  by  Ellen  Gleditch  in  19 15,  is  1642  years,  while,  ac- 
cording to  Rutherford's  latest  determination,  it  is  1690  years. 
It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose,  however,  that  the  main  prin- 
ciples have  been  removed  from  the  realm  of  theory. 

4      DISINTEGRATION   OR  DEVOLUTION    PROBABLY   UNIVERSAL  IN 

NATURE 

That  disintegration  is  thus  continually  going  on  in  these 
elements  is,  therefore,  a  demonstrated  fact.  That  the  same  is 
true  of  some  other  groups  of  elements,  such  as  that  of  the 
thoriufn  and  actinium  families,  has  also  been  shown.  The  rate 
of  disintegration  varies  apparently  with  the  atomic  weight 
of  the  elements.  The  heavier  atoms  have  been  shown  to  be, 
by  their  very  nature,  generally  more  unstable  as  to  their  re- 
volving electrons,  and,  therefore,  throw  off  their  electrons 
more  readily.  Hence,  the  disintegration  or  decomposition  of 
the  elements  would  ordinarily  proceed  from  the  heavier  to  the 
lighter  elements.  The  fact  of  the  disintegration  of  all  so- 
called  radioactive  elements,  was  well  expressed  by  Sir  Ernest 
Rutherford,  in  an  address  at  the  Royal  Institution,  London, 
June  4,  1915,  on  Radiations  from  Exploding  Atoms  (Pub- 
lished in  Nature,  July  I,  191 5),  as  follows:  "It  is  now  well 
established  that  the  radio-active  substances  are  undergoing 
spontaneous  transformation,  and  that  their  characteristic  radia- 
tions— the  alpha,  beta,  and  gamma  rays — accompany  the  act- 
ual disintegration  of  the  atoms.  The  transformation  of  each 
atom  results  from  an  atomic  explosion  of  an  exceedingly  vio- 
lent character,  and  in  general  results  in  a  liberation  of  energy 
many  million  times  greater  than  from  an  equal  mass  of  mat- 
ter in  the  most  vigorous  chemical  reaction"  (Nature,  Vol. 
XCV.,  p.  494). 

We  are  here,  therefore,  face  to  face  with  what  is  undoubt- 


2o8  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

edly  a  process  of  disintegration  and  dissolution.  And,  as  far 
as  can  be  seen,  there  Is  an  absolute  loss  of  energy.  And 
even  the  period  of  this  process  is  Tiieasiirable.  And  what  Is 
true  of  radioactive  elements  may  be  true  of  all  other  ele- 
ments. Thus  it  has  been  shown  by  Sir  J.  J.  Thomson,  that 
in  a  Crookes*  tube  other  elements  give  off  two  kinds  of  hydro- 
gen and  helium.  In  other  experiments  by  Sir  William  Ram- 
say, et  al.,  It  has  been  shown  that  apparently  all  elements  at 
least  partially  decompose  Into  hydrogen.  Therefore,  that  dis- 
integration Is  probably  going  on  in  all  elements,  though  less 
apparently  so,  is  altogether  probable.  If  biologists  speak  of 
evolution,  chemists  can  with  considerably  more  certainty,  and 
with  apparently  more  truthfulness,  speak  of  devolution.  And, 
In  the  ultimate  upshot,  devolution  rather  than  evolution  Is 
the  great  moving  principle  In  the  present  universe.  And,  of 
this  devolution,  so-called  evolution  might  be  only  the  ascend- 
ing of  a  local  wave  that  Is  surely  to  break  against  the  rocky 
barrier  of  the  eternal  shore  to  end  In  quiescence. 

Indeed,  that  all  elements  are  thus  undergoing  a  process  of 
transformation  and  disintegration.  Is  now  generally  accepted 
as  a  fact  by  physical  chemists.  Upon  this  point  Soddy  ex- 
presses himself  as  follows:  "The  aspect  which  matter  has  pre- 
sented to  us  In  the  past  is  but  a  consummate  disguise,  conceal- 
ing latent  energies  and  hidden  activities  beneath  an  hitherto 
Impenetrable  mask.  The  ultra-material  potentialities  of  rad- 
ium are  the  common  possession  of  all  that  world  to  which  In 
our  ignorance  w^e  used  to  refer  as  mere  Inanimate  matter" 
{The  Interpretation  of  Radium ,  p.  225). 

It  is  thus  seen  that  probably  all  substances  spontaneously, 
or  by  an  Inherent  law,  tend  to  disintegrate  from  more  complex 
to  simpler  forms,  so  that  here  truly  we  have  the  unmistak- 
able evidence  that  the  universe  is  In  a  process  of  ultimate  dis- 
solution, accompanied  with  a  corresponding  loss  or  annihila- 
tion of  energy. 

Moreover,  the  fact  that  the  ultimate  cause  of  atomic  dis- 
integration has  not  yet  been  found.  Is  no  argument  against  Its 
being  Itself  the  cause  of  radioactivity.  Nor  Is  It  an  argument 
for  the  theory  of  chance.  Causes  before  unknown  are  one 
after  another  being  found,  in  explanation  of  phenomena  which 
before  some  men  tried  to  ascribe  to  so-called  chance.  And  no 
one  need  draw  the  hasty  conclusion,  because  this  or  that  par- 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  209 

ticular  phenomenon  has  not  yet  been  traced  to  any  particular 
cause,  that  it  may  not  by  further  research  be  so  traced.  But 
the  point  for  us  here  is,  that  the  disintegration  is  going  on^ 
however  men  might  be  inclined  to  explain  it.  It  is  not  here  so 
much  a  question  of  why  or  cause  as  of  fact  or  effect. 

Thus  what  is  called  radioactivity  is  due  to  the  disintegrat- 
ing of  the  elements.  This  disintegration  is  also  undoubtedly 
going  on  in  substances  not  manifestly  radioactive.  This  disin- 
tegration unmistakably  points  to  a  temporal  universe.  And, 
even  if  it  be  contended  that  the  universe  might  have  thus  been 
an  evolution  or  a  devolution  from  uranium  or  any  other  sub- 
stance, even  the  ether,  this  contention  can  not  remove  the 
necessity  of  a  primal  creation  of  matter  as  represented  in 
that  primal  substance.  As  that  supposed  primal  substance 
could  not  have  been  infinite,  for  reasons  already  given,  even  as 
the  material  cosmos  supposedly  developed  from  it  is  not  in- 
finite— as  v/e  have  shown — it  could  not  be  eternal  or  absolute, 
and  therefore  uncreated.  Therefore,  even  if  uranium,  or  any 
other  substance,  were  held  to  have  been  the  primal  substance 
from  which  the  universe  was  developed,  it  would  itself  have 
had  to  be  created.  Hence,  we  must  assume  back  of  the  uni- 
verse, upon  whatever  theory  of  development  one  adopts,  an 
almighty  creative  Power  that  called  it  into  being  with  all  its 
potentialities,  for  the  very  purpose  of  evolving  or  developing 
such  a  universe. 


5      THE    CORPUSCLE    OR    ELECTRON    AND    THE    ULTIMATE    NA- 
TURE   OF    MATTER 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  structure  of  the  atoms  of  ele- 
ments is  at  least  largely  electronic.  And,  whether  there  is  a 
positive  particle  similar  to  the  negative  particle  or  electron, 
we  shall  consider  a  little  later.  We  shall  now  proceed  to 
consider  the  electron  with  reference  to  the  ultimate  nature  of 
matter. 

The  tendency  among  scientists  at  present  is  to  accept  Sir 
J.  J.  Thomson's  theory  as  to  the  corpuscle  or  electron;  and 
thus  the  phenomena  of  radium  have  led  to  the  development  of 
the  electrical  theory  of  matter.  Thomson  showed  that  all 
electrons,  under  similar  conditions,   from   atoms  of  whatever 


2IO  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

elements,  are  alike;  that  is,  that  all  so-called  matter  in  its  ulti- 
mate elements  may  be  considered  as  consisting  of  electrons  of 
the  same  kind,  not  taking  into  consideration,  however,  a  pos- 
sible positive  element  or  nucleus.  He  showed  that  these  elec- 
trons have  mass  and  inertia;  but  he  also  showed  that  an  elec- 
tric charge  has  these.  Then  he  showed  that  the  mass  of  the 
electron  is  apparently  wholly  electrical,  and  that,  therefore,  its 
inertia  is  electrical.  Thus,  step  by  step,  the  theory  was  ar- 
rived at  that  the  corpuscle  or  electron  is  not  material,  as  that 
term  is  understood,  but  that  it  is  a  charge  of  disembodied 
negative  electricity,  or  only  a  negative  charge  of  electricity. 

The  conclusion  has  thus  been  arrived  at  that  the  mass  of 
the  electron  is  wholly  electrical  or  electro-magnetic.  It  is 
accordingly  held  that,  though  for  low  velocities  this  mass  does 
practically  not  vary,  its  calculated  mass  must  increase  as  its 
velocity  approaches  that  of  light,  and  that  there  is  even  a 
definite  law  of  this  increase  of  mass  with  velocity.  Indeed,  its 
mass  has  theoretically  been  calculated  for  various  velocities. 
Thus,  at  a  velocity  of  half  that  of  light,  the  mass  has  been 
calculated  to  be  1.12  times  that  for  ordinary  or  normal  veloci- 
ties. And,  according  to  Kaufmann,  the  mass  for  .963  times 
the  velocity  of  light  should  be  2.42.  In  line  with  this  is  the 
fact  that  inertia  has  been  shown  not  to  be  a  constant  quantity. 
Sir  J.  J.  Thomson  and  Oliver  Heaviside  have  calculated  that 
it  increases  with  speed,  when  it  approaches  one  tenth  the 
velocity  of  light.  And  later  experiments  have  confirmed  this. 
And,  according  to  Sir  Oliver  I^odge,  the  electrons  sufEer  even 
a  loss  in  inertia  if  they  get  too  close  to  one  another,  or  en- 
croach upon  one  another's  magnetic  field.  This  is  also  in  line 
with  the  theory  held  by  some  men  that  the  different  atomic 
weights  of  different  substances  are  due  to  a  difference  in 
their  intrinsic  energy  or  electronic  revolutions. 

The  electronic  theory  of  electricity  is  somewhat  in  line  with 
Franklin's  theory,  that  electricity  is  of  the  nature  of  an  all- 
pervading  fluid.  That  fluid  might  thus  be  considered  as  made 
up  of  immaterial  particles  called  electrons,  flowing  from  the 
negative  to  the  positive  pole.  Indeed,  electricity  is  apparently 
simply  the  passing  of  electrons  from  atoms  to  atoms,  conduc- 
tivity varying  with  the  ease  of  the  passing  of  these  electrons. 
A  current  of  electricity  might  thus  be  spoken  of  as  a  process 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  21 1 

of  equalization  or  adjustment  somewhat  analogous  to  that 
between  connected  waters  of  different  levels.  An  electron 
(or  electrons)  attached  to  a  molecule  makes  it  a  negatively 
charged  molecule  or  ion,  A  molecule  that  has  lost  one  or 
more  electrons  is  spoken  of  as  a  positive  ion.  The  separation 
of  an  electron  from  one  atom  and  its  attachment  to  another  is 
probably  due  to  its  revolutions  around  the  atom.  Thus,  it  is 
readily  seen  that  the  mass  of  such  an  ion  is  slightly  different 
from  that  of  the  atom  from  which  it  is  formed.  The  anion, 
or  negatively  charged  ion,  is  what  might  be  called  a  neutral 
atom  plus  an  added  electron  or  electrons,  while  the  cation, 
or  the  positively  charged  ion,  is  what  might  be  called  a  neu- 
tral atom  minus  the  separated  electron  or  electrons.  Thus 
atoms  may  also  be  spoken  of  as  electro-negative,  when  they 
have  more  electrons  than  necessary  for  atomic  balance,  or 
electro-positive,  when  they  have  less  electrons  than  necessary 
for  such  balance. 

It  might  also  be  said  that  chemical  union  is  supposed  to  be 
due  to  the  bringing  together  of  atoms  of  different  potential, 
that  is,  one  set  having  at  least  one  negative  particle,  for  each 
atom,  more  than  necessary  for  stable  condition  and  the  other 
having  at  least  one  less.  These  would  thus  neutralize  each 
other  in  uniting.  Thus,  chemical  affinity  is  supposed  to  be 
electrical  in  its  nature;  and  some  have  thought  that  gravita- 
tion might  be  due  to  some  such  electrical  action  through  the 
ether. 


6      THE   POSITIVE   ELECTRICAL    ELEMENT   IN   THE    ATOM 

At  this  point  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  consider  the  hypotheti- 
cal positive  nucleus,  or  field  of  positive  electrification.  As 
something  neutralizes  the  motions  of  the  flying  electrons,  the 
probability  of  the  existence  of  a  positive  electrical  nucleus,  or 
perhaps  of  a  number  of  nuclei  or  particles,  so  as  to  balance 
the  negative  particles,  is  very  strong.  Indeed,  such  a  field  or 
nucleus  of  positive  electrification,  by  attraction  to  hold  in  bal- 
ance the  electrons,  w^hich  by  their  very  nature  would  indefi- 
nitely repel  one  another,  is  necessary  to  explain  the  integrity 
of  the  atom.  And  this  positive  electricity  is  also  necessary  to 
explain  other  phenomena  of  atomic  action.    Thus,  in  addition 


212  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

to  the  negative  electrons,  there  is  supposed  to  be  a  positive  ele- 
ment, within  or  around  which  these  electrons  revolve  with 
terrific  velocities.  But  whether  this  positive  electricity  is  also 
apparently  granular,  or  whether  it  is  one  body  or  mass,  has 
not  yet  been  determined,  though  various  evidences  seem  to 
point  to  a  granular  structure  akin  to  that  of  the  electronic 
part  of  the   atom. 

If  this  positive  nucleus  be  not  granular  in  the  sense  that  it 
is  composed  of  a  number  of  minute  particles  similar  to  the 
electrons,  which  together  constitute  the  negative  element  in 
the  atom,  it  would  seem  almost  certain  that  it  must  then  con- 
sist of  one  corpuscle  for  each  atom.  And  it  might  be  that 
there  Is  one  of  these  corpuscles  for  a  certain  number  of  elec- 
trons, perhaps  one  for  the  equivalent  of  an  hydrogen  atom, 
so  that  the  oxygen  atom  would  have  sixteen  of  them,  etc. 
But  whether  there  be  one  positive  corpuscle  for  each  atom 
or  one  for  a  certain  number  of  electrons,  that  positive  cor- 
puscle should  be  much  larger  than  the  electron  in  order  to 
balance  so  many  of  them.  And  yet,  as  the  electrons  are  so 
very  small  as  compared  with  the  atom,  so  also  must  this  posi- 
tive corpuscle  be  rather  small  as  compared  with  the  whole 
atomic  size. 

There  are,  indeed,  men  who  hold  that  the  positive  element 
in  the  atom  is  not  only  granular  or  corpuscular  in  its  nature, 
but  that  its  corpuscles  are  even  of  a  lower  order  of  magnitude 
than  the  electrons,  and  that  these  form  the  basis  of  all  wave 
motion.  This  theory  Is  expressed  by  Marion  Erwin  in  the 
following  words:  "The  positive  current  is  accounted  for  by 
flows  composed  of  minute  force  rays  in  which  particles  of  a 
lower  order  of  magnitude  than  the  electron  constitute  the 
traveling  wheels  which  are  at  the  basis  of  all  wave  motion. 
.  .  .  The  electric  current  is  the  motion  of  the  train  of  elec- 
trons through  space,  the  mechanical  action  Involved  being  the 
forward  motion  of  the  electrons  constituting  the  negative  cur- 
rent, and  the  reaction  flow  of  minute  force  ra3^s  constituting 
the  positive  current"    {The  Universe  and  the  Atom,  p.  235). 

If  this  were  the  correct  theory  as  to  the  positive  electrical 
element  in  the  atom,  its  corpuscles  of  a  lower  order  of  magni- 
tude might  be  ether  particles,  and  might  thus  constitute  not 
only  the  basis  of  all  subtle  wave  motions,  but  perhaps  also 
of    all    matter,    the    electrons    themselves    perhaps    consisting 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  213 

of  these  ether  particles  so  arranged  In  this  case  as  to  make 
possible  or  produce  the  phenomenon  known  as  positive  elec- 
tricity. Thus  light,  electricity,  magnetism,  and  perhaps  gravi- 
tation, would  be  from  the  subtle  action  of  these  ultimate 
constituents  of  all  so-called  matter. 

Somewhat  similar  to  the  above  is  Larmor's  theory  of^  the 
electrons,  that  they  are  only  strain-centres,  or  merely  infinitesi- 
mal eddies,  in  the  ether;  as  also  a  theory  suggested  by  Sir 
Oliver  Lodge,  that  they  are  only  knots  or  twists  or  vortices 
in  the  ether.  But,  in  either  case,  they  would  be  equally 
evanescent. 


7      THE     UNIVERSE     NECESSARILY     TEMPORAL     ACCORDING     TO 
THIS  THEORY  OF  MATTER 

According  to  this  theory  of  matter,  all  so-called  elements 
of  matter  are  composed  of  atoms,  consisting  of  positive  and 
negative  electricity,  the  difference  of  these  atoms  in  weight, 
etc.,  being  due  to  different  numbers  and  arrangements  and 
revolutions  of  the  electrons  around  a  positive  nucleus  or 
nuclei.  And  these  negative  electrical  corpuscles  (electrons) 
are,  under  similar  conditions,  supposedly  alike  in  all  elements, 
as  also  apparently  should  the  positive  corpuscles  be,  the  mass 
of  at  least  the  negative  corpuscles,  however,  apparently  vary- 
ing with  velocities  according  to  a  fixed  law.  Hence,  both  the 
mass  and  the  Inertia  of  atoms  would  necessarily  have  to  be 
electrical,  that  Is,  they  would  be  due  In  their  variations  to 
electrical  charges  in  motion.  Thus,  as  the  atoms  in  combina- 
tions constitute  masses,  or  all  that  we  call  matter,  it  must 
follow  that  all  so-called  matter  must,  both  in  its  elements  and 
in  Its  aggregate,  be  electrical  in  nature.  Hence,  all  mass  in 
the  aggregate  and  all  inertia,  as  indeed  all  energy,  would,  ac- 
cording to  this  theory,  be  electrical.  But,  as  the  mass  of  mat- 
ter is  equivalent  to  what  Is  known  as  Its  quantity,  it  is  readily 
seen  that  this  quantity  varies,  according  to  a  definite  law,  with 
Its  velocity.  And,  therefore,  so-called  matter  is  not  a  constant 
quantity,  as  has  been  supposed.  This  fact  has  even  been  shown 
experimentally  by  Heydweiler,  et  al.  Thus,  also,  energy  Is 
not  a  constant  quantity.  Moreover,  as  mass  varies,  according 
to  some  fixed  law,  with  energy,  the  natural  conclusion  from 
this  theory  of  matter  would  be  that  matter  and  energy  are 


214  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

one.      And    this    is   more   and    more   being   held   by    men    of 
science. 

The  above  conclusion  is  somewhat  in  line  with  the  mon- 
istic theory  of  Haeckel,  et  al.j  that  matter  and  energy  are 
one,  as  the  substance  of  all  existence.  And  in  this  philosophic 
conception  of  monism  there  is  no  doubt  thus  a  bold  groping 
after  the  truth — as,  indeed,  all  philosophy  is  thus  a  groping 
after  the  ultimate  truth  of  the  unity  of  all  existence,  and 
in  so  far  is  really  monistic  in  its  tendency.  And  this  would 
seem  all  the  more  natural  and  to  be  expected,  when  the  sub- 
ject is  viewed  from  the  higher  plane  of  the  origin  of  all 
things  from  one  ultimate  Cause.  But,  surely,  as  an  explana- 
tion of  the  existence  or  ultimate  origin  of  the  universe,  the 
Haeckelian,  or  any  other,  theory  of  monism  itself  proves  noth- 
ing. And,  furthermore,  if  we  may  anticipate,  while  the 
monism  of  Haeckel  ends  with  matter  and  energ}',  or  matter  or 
energ}%  as  the  one  existing  substance,  the  truth  as  to  ultimate 
unity  must  lie  in  the  theistic  conception  of  its  unity  in  God, 
the  only  eternal  existence,  in  Whom  all  other  existence  might 
be  regarded  as  having  eternally  been  a  Divine  potentiality. 

A  word  should  here  also  be  said  as  to  a  possibly  different 
view  of  the  nature  of  electricity  and  matter.  While  one  can 
accept  the  theory  that  all  electrons  are  only  negative  charges 
of  electricity,  it  would  for  him  not  necessarily  imply  their 
non-materiality.  He  might  rather  regard  electricity  as  the 
action  or  effect  of  the  motions  of  the  infinitesimally  small 
divisions  of  the  atom,  called  .electrons,  regarded  as  material 
corpuscles,  handing  on  by  successive  separations,  from  atom 
to  atom,  the  energy  which  is  known  under  the  term  electricity. 
Thus,  instead  of  regarding  so-called  matter  as  electrical  and 
immaterial,  a  person  might  prefer  to  regard  electricity  as  the 
flow  of  energy  propagated  by  material  electrons.  Or,  instead 
of  regarding  matter  as  electrical  and  immaterial,  there  is  a 
sense  in  which  one  might  regard  electricity  as  material.  And, 
if  the  electrons  of  negative  electricity  are  matched  by  similar 
particles  of  positive  electricity,  and  if  these  two  in  their  ar- 
rangements and  revolutions  complete  the  atom,  then  one 
might,  in  a  sense,  say  that  all  electricity  is  material  and  con- 
stitutes all  materiality,  or  that  all  matter  is  constituted  of 
electricity. 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  215 

But  even  this  view  of  matter  and  electricity,  or  of  the 
electrical  nature  of  matter,  would  not  alter  our  conclusions  as 
to  the  temporality  of  matter.  As  already  noted,  it  has  been 
quite  definitely  established  that  the  mass  and  inertia  of  the 
electron  vary  with  velocity.  Hence,  even  if  the  electron,  or 
electricity,  be  regarded  as  material,  our  conclusion  would 
stand.  Upon  this  basis,  matter  would  decrease  with  motion 
and  with  energy;  and  with  the  cessation  of  motion  and  energy 
it  would  cease  to  be. 

However,  from  the  very  fact  that  the  mass  and  the  inertia 
of  the  electron  vary  with  velocity,  as  well  as  for  other  reasons 
so  well  pointed  out  by  Thomson  and  others,  the  evidence  from 
this  scientific  view-point  rather  points  to  the  immateriality 
of  the  electron.  Hence,  upon  whatever  basis  regarded,  ac- 
cording to  this  theory  of  matter,  it  is  temporal. 

In  considering  this  theory  of  matter  and  electricity,  or  this 
electrical  theory  of  matter,  in  its  bearing  upon  the  question 
as  to  the  duration  of  the  so-called  physical  universe,  it  should, 
therefore,  need  no  further  argument  to  prove  that  it  would 
spell  temporality .  If  it  were  accepted  upon  its  face  value,  not 
only  disintegration,  but  even  real  annihilation  of  matter  with 
corresponding  annihilation  of  energy  in  final  cessation  of  all 
motion  or  vibration,  toward  which  the  universe  is  certainly 
tending,  as  well  as  of  all  potentiality,  would  necessarily  re- 
sult. Thus,  with  the  passing  of  motion  and  energy,  all  matter 
itself  would  also  pass  away.  And  the  reverse  might  even  be 
true,  that  the  generation  anew  of  energy  might  result  in  so- 
called  matter. 

William  Ostwald,  in  his  famous  paper  on  Overthrow  of 
Scientific  Materialisnij  1895,  even  at  that  early  period  of  these 
investigations  of  the  newer  chemistry  and  physics,  declared 
that  all  we  know  about  so-called  matter  is  the  energy  it  mani- 
fests, or  its  changes  of  energy,  and  that  the  existence  of  mat- 
ter is  only  a  supposition  required  by  our  modes  of  thought, 
especially  in  their  historic  unfoldings.  Other  investigators 
have  reached  similar  conclusions. 

Thus,  the  testimony  of  the  latest  science,  as  well  as  that  of 
philosophy,  is  unmistakable;  namely,  that  what  is  called  the 
physical  universe  will  finally  end  in  dissolution  and  anni- 
hilation, even  though  left  to  its  own  inherent  forces  or  laws, 


2i6  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

and  that,  therefore,  it  must  have  had  a  beginning  In  a  creation 
by  an  external  transcendent  Power. 

V  THE  ETHER  THEORY  OF  MATTER 

One  of  the  as  yet  unsolved  problems  of  science  is  the  de- 
termination of  the  real  nature  of  the  so-called  luminlferous 
ether.  Heinrich  Hertz,  before  the  Sixty-Second  Congress  of 
German  Naturalists  and  Physicians,  Heidelberg,  1889,  ex- 
pressed himself  as  of  the  conviction  that  a  knowledge  of  the 
real  nature  of  the  ether  would  mean  to  understand  the  ulti- 
mate nature  of  matter.  He  also  expressed  the  belief  that  all 
matter  is  from  the  ether,  that  is,  that  the  ether  constitutes  the 
ultimate  substance  of  the  material  universe.  His  words,  as  we 
find  them  translated,  are  in  part  as  follows:  "Immediately 
connected  therewith  [the  question  of  the  nature  of  electricity] 
arises  the  momentous  and  primary  question  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  ether,  of  the  properties  of  the  medium  that  fills  all  space, 
its  structure,  its  rest  or  motion,  its  infinitude  or  finitude.  It 
becomes  every  day  more  manifest  that  this  question  rises  above 
all  others,  that  a  knowledge  of  what  the  ether  is  would  re- 
veal to  us  not  only  the  nature  of  the  old  'imponderables,'  but 
also  of  the  old  'matter'  itself  and  Its  most  essential  properties, 
weights  and  inertia.  Modern  physics  is  not  far  from  the  ques- 
tion whether  everything  that  exists  is  not  created  from  the 
ether"  (Haeckel:  Monism,  p.  103). 

Other  scientists  have  come  to  similar  conclusions.  And 
there  is  much  in  recent  scientific  discoveries  that  points  in  this 
direction.  And  this  may,  of  course,  be  acknowledged  without 
accepting  some  fanciful  theories  of  spontaneous  creation,  etc., 
of  ponderable  matter,  in  the  interests  of  which  this  theory  of 
the  ether  Is  often  defended. 

It  Is  not  within  our  province  to  enter  into  the  various  the- 
ories of  the  ether,  except  in  so  far  as  they  are  related  to  the 
subject  under  discussion.  A  number  of  ingenious  theories 
are  reviewed  in  the  History  of  the  Theories  of  Aether  and 
Electricity,  19 10,  by  E.  J.  Whittaker,  Royal  Astronomer  of 
Ireland,  to  whose  work  we  would  refer  the  reader  for  theories 
not  referred  to  here. 

The  necessity  of  postulating  some  very  attenuated  medium 
filling   all   space   not   occupied    by   ponderable   matter,    is,   of 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  217 

course,  felt  by  any  one  who  reflects  on  the  transmission  of 
light  and  heat  from  sun  to  earth — not  to  speak  of  electricity 
and  gravitation.  As  light  radiation  through  the  ether  exerts 
pressure,  as  was  calculated  by  Clerk  Maxwell  nearly  half  a 
century  ago,  and  as  has  been  definitely  demonstrated  since, 
no  one  can  doubt  the  existence  of  the  ether.  And,  moreover, 
even  reason  would  demand  some  medium  for  light-propagation, 
etc.,  as  indeed  for  any  other  form  of  energ}^,  for  action  at  a 
distance,  or  without  some  intervening  medium,  is  virtually 
unthinkable. 

Although  the  idea  of  the  ether  is  quite  an  old  one,  it  was 
not  till  the  year  1804  that  it  Vv^as  first  somewhat  developed 
by  Dr.  Thomas  Young  of  England.  But  it  was  even  then 
regarded  by  many  as  altogether  too  strange  a  speculative  the- 
ory to  deserve  much  consideration.  And,  hence,  it  took  years 
till  it  gained  many  advocates.  It  gradually,  however,  gained 
more  and  more  adherents,  as  it  was  more  fully  developed.  At 
present  it  is,  of  course,  a  universally  accepted  theory  of  science. 

I       THE     MORE     GENERALLY     ACCEPTED     THEORY    AS,    TO    THE 
NATURE  OF  THE  ETHER 

The  ether  is  quite  generally  conceived  of  now  as  a  very 
rare  gaseous  but  imponderable  substance,  that  pervades  all 
space,  even  passing  between  all  the  infinitesimal  particles  of 
so-called  ponderable  matter — as  all  matter  must  be  porous.  It 
is  by  transverse  waves  of  the  ether  as  a  medium  that  light, 
heat,  and  electricity  in  wireless  telegraphy,  are  definitely 
known  to  be  transmitted.  This  is  not,  however,  as  if  light, 
heat  and  electricity  are  transmitted  as  though  they  were  things, 
but  rather  that  these  phenomena  are  due  to  the  ether  waves 
themselves. 

It  is  held  by  eminent  investigators  that  the  ether  is  granular 
in  its  nature,  that  is,  that  it  is  composed  of  infinitesimal  parti- 
cles. This  is  the  theory  of  the  Russian  chemist  Mendeleef. 
And  Haeckel  is  apparently  in  some  passages  inclined  to  accept 
this  particle  or  granular  theory  of  the  ether.  And  to  this, 
such  phenomena  as  the  transmission  of  light,  heat,  electricity, 
etc.,  through  the  ether,  already  noted,  unmistakably  point. 
The  transmission  of  these  by  disturbances  analogous  to  those 
of  air  for  sound,  and  of  water  waves  in  concentric  rings  caused 


21 8  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

by  a  pebble,  plainly  indicates  that  the  constitutions  of  these 
three  media  are  somewhat  similar.  As  the  air  Is  a  much  rarer 
medium  than  water,  but  also  granular  in  Its  nature,  so  no 
doubt  Is  the  ether  a  medium  much  rarer  than  air,  but  also 
granular  In  its  nature.  So-called  matter,  as  known  to  us,  may 
be  spoken  of  as  existing  in  a  solid  state,  a  liquid  state,  a  gaseous 
state,  and  a  radiant  state,  as  in  the  disintegrated  atoms  In 
electronic  rays.  And,  because  of  its  association  with  radio- 
active substances,  this  last  state  might  well  be  called  ^'radiant 
matter,"  as  Sir  William  Crookes,  In  a  paper  on  Molecular 
Physics  in  High  Vacua,  read  before  the  Royal  Society  of  Eng- 
land, called  the  cathode-rays  In  a  highly  evacuated  vessel. 
And,  the  supposition  is  quite  well  confirmed  by  various  phenom- 
ena, among  them  the  power  of  penetration,  that  the  ether  is  a 
still  rarer  state  of  what  one  might  choose  also  to  call  mat- 
ter. Thus  the  ether  may  be  conceived  of  as  supposedly  pass- 
ing, or  filling  the  spaces,  between  even  the  electrons,  as  the 
electrons  apparently  pass  between  or  through  atoms,  and  as 
gases  may  penetrate  liquids  and  liquids  may  pass  between  an 
aggregation  of  solids  like  a  pile  of  bullets. 

2      THE   ETHER  AND  SO-CALLED  PONDERABLE  MATTER  ACCORD- 
ING TO  THIS   THEORY 

It  Is  held  by  some  eminent  scientists,  as  already  suggested, 
that  not  only  do  the  even  smaller  particles  of  the  ether  pass 
between  the  particles  of  other  rnatter,  but  that  even  these  other 
particles  themselves  are  compo'sed  of  ether  particles.  Or,  in 
other  words,  in  its  Interstellar  or  ultimate  state,  the  ether  Is 
thus  supposed  by  some  to  be  matter  In  Its  rarest  form.  It  Is 
this  that  gives  us  the  name  of  this  theory  of  matter.  The 
ether  would  thus  be  the  ultimate  state  or  element  (urstojf) 
of  all  so-called  material  substance.  Thus,  the  great  physicist 
J.  G.  Vogt  considered  v/hat  we  call  matter  as  In  a  sense  con- 
densed ether,  the  atoms  being  individualized  centres  of  ether 
concentrations.  In  the  Interests  of  his  evolutionary  monistic 
philosophy,  Ernst  Haeckel  entertained  somewhat  similar 
views.  But,  as  to  the  exact  relation  of  the  ether  to  ponder- 
able matter,  Haeckel  acknowledges  that  we  are  as  yet  in 
Ignorance. 


Evidence  from  the  "Mature  of  Matter  ^19 

In  his  Riddle  of  the  Universe,  pages  227  and  228,  Haeckel 
considers  the  ether  rather  as  a  highly  attenuated  elastic  jelly- 
like— and  probably,  however,  continuous — substance,  fully  oc- 
cupying all  space  between  ponderable  matter,  and,  of  course, 
to  its  ultimate  particles.  Its  exact  weight  he  regards  as  beyond 
experimental  determination,  though  he  seems  inclined  to  ac- 
cept the  weight  determined  from  the  energy  of  light  waves,  ac- 
cording  to  which    its  weight    is   about   one   fifteen    trillionth 

(773^1^)  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^'  ^^^'^  is,  its  weight  would  be  about 
1155  X  10 13  that  of  water.  Or  water  would  weigh  over 
10^^  times  as  much  as  the  same  volume  of  the  ether.  And 
this  puts  the  density  of  the  ether  in  nearly  the  same  order  of 
magnitude  as  that  determined  by  Lord  Kelvin  and  Graetz,  the 
former  calculating  its  density  to  be  about  lO"^^  that  of  water 
and  the  latter,  about  9X10"^^  that  of  water. 

The  ether  is  thus  held  by  Haeckel  to  be  one  of  the  five 
conditions  or  stages  of  matter;  namely,  etheric,  gaseous,  fluid, 
viscous  (in  living  protoplasm)  and  solid — a  classification  some- 
what like  the  one  suggested  above.  He  regards  the  ether  as 
limitless  and  in  eternal  motion,  which,  in  reciprocal  action 
with  mass-movement  or  gravitation,  is  supposedly  the  ultimate 
cause  of  all  phenomena.  So,  also,  J.  G.  Vogt  regarded  force 
as  due  to  condensations  and  contractions  of  the  primal  sub- 
stance or  ether.  From  this  process  are  supposedly  developed 
what  he  called  pyknatoms,  or  material  particles  (like  atoms), 
supposedly  having  will-movement,  floating  within  the  as  yet 
uncondensed  portion  of  the  primal  substance. 

Thus,  according  to  this  form  of  the  theory,  viewed  in  a 
general  way,  matter  would  be  divisible  into  molecules,  these 
generally  into  atoms,  these  into  negative  particles  (electrons) 
and  positive  particles  not  yet  definitely  determined,  and  both 
these  finally  into  what  might  be  called  etherons.  And  these 
etherons  would  probably  be  moving  within  the  electrons  and 
positive  particles  in  infinitesimal  orbits  with  wonderful  veloci- 
ties, in  a  manner  similar  to  that  of  the  electrons  within  the 
atoms.  Hence,  all  so-called  matter  would  ultimately  consist 
of  ether,  or  ether  would  form  or  be  the  ultimate  substance  of 
all  matter.     Thus,  what  we  call  matter  would  be  nothing  but 


220  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

condensations  of  the  ether,  in  constant  motion  within  the  part 
not  condensed.  Or,  matter  would  be  only  a  manifestation  of 
the  ether.  And  these  facts  would,  of  course,  be  unchanged  if 
the  ether  were  considered  to  be  like  rarefied  glass,  whose  con- 
densations in  certain  sections  would  supposedly  constitute 
what  we  call  matter — a  theory  that  is  merely  a  modification 
of  the  one  given  above. 

3       THE   MATERIAL    UNIVERSE  TEMPORAL    UPON   THE    BASIS   OF 
THIS    THEORY    OF    THE    ETHER 

Upon  the  basis  of  this  theory  of  the  ether,  the  present  uni- 
verse would  necessarily  be  a  temporal  existence.  Being  sujp- 
posedly  a  development  from  the  ether,  it  would  necessarily,  by 
cessation  of  motion,  or  annihilation  of  energy,  pass  back  at 
least  into  this  elemental  ether.  Thus,  LeBon  is  compelled  to 
hold  that,  upon  the  basis  of  the  ether  theory  of  matter,  the 
universe  must  have  originated  from  the  ether,  and  that,  after 
running  its  course,  it  must  again  pass  away.  His  theory  in  a 
nut-shell,  as  given  by  one  of  his  best  commentators,  is  as  fol- 
lows: "We  Imagine  the  world  to  be  formed  at  first  of  dif- 
fuse atoms  of  ether  which,  under  the  action  of  unknown 
forces,  have  stored  energy.  This  energy,  one  of  the  forms  of 
which  is  matter,  dissociates  and  appears  in  various  forms — 
electricity,  heat,  Sec,  so  as  to  bring  matter  back  to  ether. 
'Nothing  Is  created'  signifies  that  w^e  cannot  create  matter. 
'Everything  is  lost'  means  that  matter  disappears  entirely,  as 
does  matter  by  Its  return  to  the  ether.  The  cycle  is  there- 
fore complete.  There  are  two  phases  in  the  history  of  a 
world:  i.  Condensation  of  energy  under  the  form  of  mat- 
ter; 2,  Expenditure  of  this  energy"  (LeBon:  The  Evolution 
of  Forces,  1908,  pp.  96-97). 

LeBon  holds  that  what  gives  apparent  solidity  to  so-called 
matter,  is  really  the  great  velocity  of  the  vortex-rings  formed 
in  the  ether.  Matter  would  thus  be  nothing  but  rapidity  of 
ether  motion,  and  therefore  a  form  of  energy.  And  when 
that  motion  ceases,  matter  as  we  know  it  must  cease  to  be. 
Energy  is  due  to  motion ;  and,  in  the  concentration  of  the 
ether,  as  noted  above,  it  would  have  been  stored  up  for  use 
in  future  dissociation  or  disintegration.  And  thus  gradually, 
by    spontaneous   processes,    all    energy,    even    to   the    so-called 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  221 

intra-atomic  energy,  is  apparently  given  forth  and  dissipated. 
And  when  this  will  have  been  completed,  the  material  uni- 
verse will  have  ceased  to  exist.  Certainly,  if  matter  were 
only  a  manifestation  or  form  of  energy,  then  with  the  mani- 
festation of  energy  so-called  matter  must  have  begun  to  exist, 
and  with  the  cessation  of  energy  it  must  cease  to  be.  Thus, 
upon  the  basis  of  this  theory  of  matter,  the  material  universe 
would  pass  away,  as  also  it  must  have  begun  to  be. 

This  fact  is,  moreover,  also  implied  in  the  very  granular 
nature  of  the  ether,  as  well  as  in  its  constant  motion  or  vibra- 
tion, for  a  granular  and  moving  entity  must  necessarily  be 
finite,  as  already  pointed  out.  And,  if  it  were  contended,  for 
the  sake  of  argument,  that  it  is  not  granular,  even  then,  for 
the  reason  that  it  supposedly  produces  finite  granular  matter 
and  for  reasons  elsewhere  given,  it  must  be  finite.  Indeed,  the 
very  force  of  gravitation,  which  is  probably  due  to  very  subtle 
and  as  yet  unsuspected  waves  of  ether,  somewhat  like  those 
that  produce  the  phenomena  of  light,  etc.,  is  itself  another 
proof  of  the  finiteness  of  that  medium  within  which  it  operates, 
as  well  as  of  the  so-called  ponderable  matter  upon  which  it 
operates  and  whose  positions  and  motions  it  controls.  If  the 
universe  of  matter  and  ether  were  infinite,  it  would  have  to 
rest  in  eternal  equipoise.  But,  as  it  does  not  thus  rest  in  bal- 
anced quiescence,  it  must  be  finite,  and  therefore  by  nature 
temporal,  not  only  as  a  cosmic  whole  but  also  in  its  ultimate 
ethereal  particles. 

Thus,  in  this  wonderful  arrangement  for  gravitation,  even 
according  to  this  theory  of  matter,  often  appealed  to  in  at- 
tempting to  explain  away  a  creative  Divinity,  we  have  one 
more  link  in  the  chain  of  evidence  for  the  finite  and  temporal 
nature  of  the  universe  and  for  its  creation  by  a  Supreme 
Deity. 

4      THEORY    MAKING    THE    ETHER    THE    ONLY,    OR    AT    LEAST 
THE  DENSER,    MATERIALITY 

There  is  at  least  one  other  ingenious,  and  rather  suggestive, 
theory  as  to  the  ether  that  should  here  be  considered,  to  deter- 
mine whether  it  might  in  any  way  affect  our  conclusion  as  to 
the  duration  of  the  universe.  This  very  interesting  theory 
makes  the  so-called  imponderable  ether  the  only  material  exist- 


222  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

ence.  According  to  this  view,  what  we  know  as  matter  would 
have  no  real  existence.  This  theory  of  the  ether  may  be  re- 
garded as  based  upon  a  view-point  almost  diametrically  oppo- 
site that  upon  which  the  more  generally  accepted  theory  is 
based.  According  to  this  newer  theory,  the  ether  is  the  only 
real  material,  out  upon  which  we  look  from  so-called  material- 
ity. According  to  the  other  and  accepted  view  of  the  ether, 
matter  is  the  denser  medium,  or  the  only  real  matter,  out 
from  which  we  look  upon  the  more  rarefied  medium,  which, 
compared  with  it,  is  practical  non-materiality. 

This    theory   was   somewhat    fully    developed    by    Professor 
Reynolds  in  his  Sub-Mechanics  of  the   Universe,  published  in 
1903   by  the  Cambridge  University  Press.      He  considers  the 
ether    as    an    all-pervading    liquid    mass    of    indefinite    extent, 
granular   in  its  structure.     And,  what  we  call  matter,   in  its 
particles,  he  regards  as  only  empty  cracks  in  silent  nothingness, 
in   constant   motions   within   the   ethereal   fluid,    the   only   real 
matter.     The  density  of   this  ether  has  been  estimated  to  be 
even  about  2,000  times  as  great  as  lead.     According  to  Rey- 
nolds'   calculations,    its   ultimate   spherical   particles  would   be 
so  small  that  their  diameters  would  measure  only  5-534XiO"^^ 
centimeters.      That    is,    it    would    require    about    5XIO^^    or 
500  quadrillion,  of  these  ether  particles  side  by  side  to  meas- 
ure an  inch;  or,  in  a  cubic  inch  there  could  thus  be  125X10^"*^ 
ether  particles.     These  would  then  correspond  to  the  ultimate 
particles    for   which   we    above   suggested    the    name    etherons. 
Even    as    compared    with    the    electrons    these    ether    particles 
would  be  infinitesimally  small,  so  small  that  it  would  require 
about  15  to  20  thousand  ether  particles  side  by  side  to  measure 
as  much  as  the  diameter  of  an  electron,  or  about  4  to  8  tril- 
lions to  occupy  the  cubic  space  of  one  electron.     How  incon- 
ceivably larger,  then,  would  an  atom  or  a  molecule  be!     And 
yet,  even  these  molecules  and  atoms  lie  in  the  unfathomable 
depths  far  below  the  reach  of  the  best  modern  microscope. 

Because  of  its  vast  extent,  the  pressure  at  any  point  within 
the  ether,  according  to  this  theory,  it  is  calculated,  would  be 
inconceivably  great — about  10,000  tons  per  square  centimeter, 
or  62,500  tons  per  square  inch.  Parts  of  matter,  according 
to  this  theory,  being  only  vacua  or  partial  vacua  within  this 
ether,  could  thus,  like  mere  waves,  supposedly  move  unob- 
structed.    However,  as  matter  is  supposedly  a  non-reality,  we 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  223 

need  not  speak  of  its  temporality.  And  the  grained  struc- 
ture of  the  ether  would  necessarily  imply  even  its  finiteness 
and  temporal  nature. 

This  theory  is  similar  to  that  of  Whetham,  who  regards 
matter  as  only  "a  permanent  strain  form  flitting  through  a 
universal  sea  of  ether,"  and  the  ether  as  "a  close-packed  con- 
glomerate of  minute  grains  in  continual  oscillation."  It  is, 
of  course,  readily  seen  that,  as  a  strain  implies  a  tendency 
to  motion  and  adjustment  and  therefore  to  final  relaxation 
and  rest,  the  ultimate  removal  of  this  strain  would  mean  the 
end  of  so-called  matter.  Moreover,  the  very  grained  nature 
of  the  ether,  according  to  this  theory  also,  would  mean  its  own 
finiteness,  dependence,  and  temporality,  and  that  it  must  have 
been  created.  But  the  temporal  nature  of  the  ether  itself 
we  shall  presently  discuss  more  fully. 

Others  regard  matter  as  merely  whirlpools  in  the  universal 
ether,  a  theory  which  amounts  to  practically  the  same  thing 
for  our  purpose,  as  those  noted  above.  Thus,  if  matter  were 
but  whirlpools  in  the  ether,  quiescence  would  inevitably  finally 
result,  and  at  least  so-called  matter,  from  atom  to  star,  w^ould 
cease  to  be. 

5       THE     PHYSICAL     UNIVERSE     TEMPORAL     AS     TO     BOTH     ITS 
MATTER   AND   ITS    ETHER 

Thus  far  we  have  more  especially  shown  that,  upon  the 
basis  of  these  theories  of  the  ether,  the  physical  universe  as  to 
so-called  ponderable  matter  must  necessarily  pass  away,  as 
also  it  must  have  come  into  being  in  time.  We  have  also 
briefly  noted  that,  from  its  necessary  finiteness,  the  ether  it- 
self cannot  be  an  eternal  entity.  We  shall  now,  from  the  very 
nature  of  w^hat  might  be  called  the  essence  of  the  ether,  briefly 
show  that  an  ether-constituted  universe  would  be  temporal 
not  only  with  reference  to  its  so-called  ponderable  or  material 
side,  but  also  with  reference  to  its  imponderable  or  ethereal 
side. 

It  is  seen  that  the  ether,  which  supposedly  is  the  basic  sub- 
stance of  all  so-called  matter,  according  to  this  theory  of  mat- 
ter, is  itself  held  to  be  a  so-called  imponderable  immateriality. 
Like  the  electron  of  the  electrical  theory  of  matter,  the  sup- 
posed  ultimate   something    (etheron)    of   the   ether   theory   of 


224  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

matter,  is  supposed  to  have  mass  and  energy  by  virtue  of  its 
motion.  In  fact,  in  this  subtle  entity,  energy  and  mass,  or 
what  might  be  called  elemental  matter,  are  generally  held^  to 
be  identical.  The  same  reasoning  that  ends  in  the  immaterial- 
ity of  the  electron,  also  ends  in  the  immateriality  of  the  ulti- 
mate element  of  the  ether.  And  thus,  in  their  aggregations  in 
so-called  matter,  according  to  this  theory,  they  would  still,  as 
such  apparent  materiality,  remain  immaterial.  This  fact  was 
already  foreshadowed  in  the  electrical  theory  of  matter,  in 
what  was  said  about  the  possible  composite  nature  of  the 
electron  and  the  positive  element  of  the  atom.  It  should  thus 
readily  be  apparent  that,  according  to  this  theory  of  matter, 
no  less  than  according  to  the  electrical  theory  of  matter,  the 
physical  universe  in  toto  would  be  a  temporal  entity. 

If  the  electron  (as  also  the  positive  element  of  the  atom)  is 
non-material,  or  nothing  but  energ>%  and  if  it  itself  consists  of 
etherons,  or  of  ether  in  whatever  form — as  would  be^  the  case 
according  to  the  ether  theory — then  the  ether  constituent  or 
component  of  the  electron  must  necessarily  be  immaterial  and 
nothing  but  energy.  Hence,  the  argument  in  proof  of  a  tem- 
poral universe  upon  the  basis  of  the  electrical  theory  of  matter, 
would  be  equally  valid  upon  the  basis  of  this  ether  theory  of 
matter.  According  to  this  theory  of  matter,  therefore,  with 
the  annihilation  of  energy  in  final  cessation  of  all  motion  and 
vibration,  toward  which  the  universe  is  unmistakably  tending, 
a  corresponding  annihilation  of  what  we  know  as  matter  must 
necessarily  result.  Thus,  the  physical  universe  must  necessarily 
have  an  end. 

Moreover,  as  its  present  existence,  whether  viewed  from 
the  angle  of  so-called  energy  or  from  the  angle  of  so-called 
matter,  by  the  very  law  of  inertia,  implies  some  extrinsic  power 
to  account  for  its  motions  or  vibrations,  it  must  have  had  a 
beginning  in  a  transcendent  creation.  And,  if  it  be  con- 
tended that  what  is  spoken  of  as  creation  means  simply  the 
development  of  the  material  universe  out  of  the  elemental  ether 
— as  has  often  been  done — even  then  the  unavoidable  ques- 
tion would  arise  unbidden  before  the  mind,  Whence  the  ether, 
and  what  the  power  back  of  that  supposed  evolution  to  cause  it 
to  evolve? 

Indeed,  the  very  existence  of  the  ether  and  its  supposed 
evolution,    upon    such    a    theory,    constitute   the   two    positive 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  225 

witnesses  by  which  the  outstanding  fact  of  their  creation  by 
an  external  power  is  definitely  established.  Hence,  a  supreme 
Creator  there  must  have  been,  and  be,  back  of  the  physical 
universe  as  His  creature.  And  that  supreme  Creator  Is  He 
Whom  the  Christian  knows  as  God,  by  whatever  name  any 
other  class  of  thinkers  might  choose  to  call  Him. 

And,  even  apart  from  the  Inherent  temporality  of  the  uni- 
verse, as  to  both  a  beginning  and  an  end,  according  to  this 
ether  theory  of  matter,  there  is  another  consideration  from 
which  it  is  also  certain  that  the  universe  must  be  temporal. 
According  to  this  ether  theory,  even  the  universal  whole  is 
finite,  for  the  unanswerable  reasons  elsewhere  given.  Hence, 
as  we  have  already  shown  that  a  finite  entity  cannot  be  self- 
existent,  and  as  it  can,  therefore,  not  be  eternal,  the  physical 
universe,  also  from  this  view-point  of  the  ether  theory  of  mat- 
ter. Is  a  temporal  entity.  Therefore,  however  viewed,  it  must 
have  had  a  beginning,  as  also  It  must  have  an  end.  And, 
therefore,  it  must  have  come  into  being  by  the  voluntary  act 
of  a  supreme  Deity. 

6      THE    ETHER    AND    ENERGY MONISM  S    CREATIVE    DIVINITY 

In  accordance  with  his  theory  of  a  universal  evolution — 
including  even  the  primary  elements  as  historic  products  of 
an  evolutionary  process — Haeckel  Inclines  to  the  view  that 
the  ether  Itself  Is  a  kind  of  creative  divinity  working  upon  or 
in  ponderable  matter  as  creative  material,  which  is  itself  evolved 
by  condensation  from  the  ether.  The  statement  of  Haeckel 
upon  this  point  Is  as  follows:  "The  two  fundamental  forms 
of  substance,  ponderable  matter  and  ether,  are  not  dead  and 
only  moved  by  extrinsic  force,  but  they  are  endowed  with 
sensation  and  will  (though,  naturally  of  the  lowest  grade); 
they  experience  an  inclination  for  condensation,  a  dislike  of 
strain;  they  strive  after  the  one  and  struggle  against  the 
other"  (The  Riddle  of  the  Universe,  p.  22o).  To  this  he 
adds  that  there  Is  no  space  not  filled  with  ether  matter  or  ether, 
and  that  all  action  is  by  immediate  contact  or  by  the  media- 
tion of  the  ether.  With  him,  atoms  and  molecules  have  sensa- 
tion, inclination  and  feeling,  resulting  In  combinations,  etc., 
even  as  the  sexes  are  drawn  together. 

There   seems,  however,  to  be  a  confusion  of  ideas  or  words 


226  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

In   Haeckel's  various  statements  upon   this  point.      He   appa- 
rently uses  ether,  energy,  and  even  spirit,  for  the  same  thing, 
This  makes  his  so-called   religious  position   at   first  somewhat 
difficult   to   determine — if   it   can,    indeed,   be   spoken   of   as   a 
religious  position.     But  it  should  deceive  no  one  upon  careful 
examination.     He  seems  to  labor  In  search  of  an  adequate  cause 
of    the    physical    universe.      Reason    drives   him    toward    some 
unifying    eternal,    infinite    something    as    fundamental    to    all 
existence.      And    this   he   finds,    to   his   own   satisfaction,    In    a 
monistic  conception  of  the  universe.     Thus,  all  is  of  one  and 
all  Is  one — one  eternal  Infinite  substance  under  different  mani- 
festations.    To  the  ether,  as  apparently  substance  In  Its  ulti- 
mate  nature,    he    ascribes   sensation    and   will;    and    hence   he 
somehow   regards  it  as  spirit,   and   therefore   as  energy.     But 
his  conception  of  spirit  or  will  as  being  at  the  foundation  of 
the  universe.  Is  far  from  that  of  the  Christian.     Some  of  his 
utterances  must  therefore  be  carefully  weighed   to  avoid  mis- 
Interpretation.     The  following  words  wall  illustrate  this  point: 
"We    hold    with    Goethe    that    matter    cannot    exist    and    be 
operative  without  spirit,  nor  spirit  wn'thout  matter.     We  ad- 
here   firmly    to    the    pure,    unequivocal    monism    of    Spinoza: 
Matter,  or  infinitely  extended  substance,  are  the   two   funda- 
mental   attributes,   or   principal   properties,    of   the   all-embrac- 
ing essence  of  the  w^orld,   the  universal   substance"    {Ibid.,  p. 
8).     Thus,  all  physical  and  chemical  operations.  In  their  last 
analysis,  are  made  to  be  spiritual  or  mental,  as,  conversely,  all 
mental    and    spiritual    operations    are   held    to    be    physical    or 
chemical.     Physical  processes,  chemical  processes,  mental  proc- 
esses or   thinking,   consciousness — what  a  confusion  of   Ideas! 

It  might  also  be  said  that  Herbert  Spencer  was  inclined  to 
a  similar  exalted  conception  of  the  ether,  as  expressed  in  the 
following  words:  "The  only  supposition  having  consistency 
is  that  that  In  which  consciousness  Inheres  Is  the  all-pervading 
ether.  This  we  know  can  be  affected  by  molecules  of  matter 
in  motion  and  conversely  can  affect  the  motions  of  molecules; 
as  witness  the  action  of  light  on  the  retina"  {First  Principles, 
p.   201). 

Of  course,  when  a  conscious  Personality  back  of  nature 
as  its  First  Cause  Is  denied,  another  cause  must  be  sought 
somewhere,  for  a  cause  there  must  be.  And  thus  It  Is  only 
natural  to  look  for  It  in   the  most  subtle,   as  apparently  the 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  227 

ultimate,  thing  in  physical  nature,  of  which  man  knows.  In- 
deed, the  very  mysteriousness  of  the  ether  is  its  best  recommen- 
dation to  be  exalted  into  an  ultimate  cause,  or  a  subtle  divinity. 
To  these  speculators  the  ether  is,  therefore,  more  like  what 
God  is  to  the  Christian  than  anything  else  they  can  conceive 
of. 

Thus,  the  ether  theory  becomes  to  many  philosophers  and 
men  of  science  somewhat  of  an  article  of  faith.  This  is  even 
acknowledged  by  Haeckel,  as  witness  the  following  words: 
''Religion  itself,  in  its  reasonable  forms,  can  take  over  the 
ether  theory  as  an  article  of  faith,  bringing  into  contradistinc- 
tion the  mobile  cosmic  ether  as  creating  divinity,  and  the  inert 
heavy  mass  as  material  of  creation"  {Monism,  pp.  24-25). 
And,  of  course,  the  learned  philosopher  must  be  understood 
to  incline  to  the  view  that  this  relation  between  ''ether  as 
creating  divinity"  and  "mass  as  material  of  creation,"  is  itself 
one  of  actual  creator  and  creature,  in  the  sense  that  the  ether 
"originally  engendered  the  heavy  mass"    {Ibid.,  p.   29). 

Thus,  the  ether  is  his  equivalent  of  the  Christian's  God,  of 
Whom  the  universe  of  ponderable  matter  is  the  creature. 
There  is  this  deviation,  however,  from  the  Christian  concep- 
tion of  primal  creation,  that  with  Haeckel  this  creation  is  not 
a  creation  by  a  supreme  absolute  Will  ex  nihilo,  but  by  a 
blind  evolutionary  emanation  of  this  ethereal  divinity  itself. 
This  emanation  supposedly  resulted  in  a  universe-material  of 
one  kind,  from  which  spontaneously  evolved  all  the  different 
so-called  chemical  elements,  from  which  in  further  evolu- 
tion has  evolved,  and  is  still  evolving,  the  present  cosmic  uni- 
verse. Thus,  in  accordance  with  this  monistic  philosophy,  the 
whole  material  universe  is  of  one  ultimate  substance,  and  that 
substance  is  the  emanation  of  its  blind  ethereal  divinity,  with 
which  it  is,  therefore,  supposedly  likewise  ultimately  of  one 
substance. 

This  theory,  apart  from  its  theistic  or  religious  aspect,  is 
certainly  a  bold  guess  at  some  possibly  ultimate  truth.  And, 
as  to  its  material  side,  the  more  recent  discoveries  of  chemistry 
have  gone  a  long  way  to  confirm  some  of  its  elements.  But, 
as  a  theological  explanation  of  the  ultimate  origination  of 
things,  it  has  no  value.  Its  implied  blind  Chance  back  of  the 
present  orderly  universe   cannot   account   even   for   Haeckel's 


228  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

theory,  or  for  the  book  in  which  It  was  given  to  the  world. 
I  cannot  deny  the  existence  of  some  learned  personality  back 
of  his  book,  nor  can  he  deny  the  existence  of  an  infinitely 
greater  personality  back  of  the  ordered  universe.  Indeed,  by 
the  very  laws  of  thought  and  by  his  own  religious  instincts, 
the  monistic  philosopher  Is  forced  back  to  some  sort  of  divinity 
and  some  sort  of  creative  process.  And,  as  these  are 
infinitely  below  those  set  forth  through  His  servants  by 
One  Who,  from  every  available  evidence,  alone  knows, 
it  would  be  far  grander,  and  even  more  honest,  openly 
to  accept  as  final  the  declaration  of  that  One,  Who  Himself 
spake  and  it  was  done,  rather  than  to  hide  from  Him  behind 
mere  theories  of  speculative  philosophy. 

Indeed,  In  Haeckel's  own  premises  of  reasoning  the  im- 
possibility of  accounting  for  cosmic  nature  without  a  super- 
natural sentient  Being,  is  only  too  evident.  In  the  passage 
from  page  220  of  The  Riddle  of  the  Universe,  cited  above, 
he  speaks  of  "the  two  fundamental  forms  of  substance,  ponder- 
able matter  and  ether"  as  endowed  with  what  he  calls  "sensa- 
tion and  will."  It  Is  from  this  endowment  as  a  potentiality 
that  the  cosmic  universe  supposedly  evolved.  But,  this  very 
assumption  of  an  endowment  of  the  ether  is  suicidal  to  his 
own  theory  of  the  self-sufUcIency  of  "ether  as  creating  divin- 
ity," the  divinity  that  supposedly  "originally  engendered  the 
heavy  mass."  That  very  endowment  of  the  ether  as  a  sup- 
posed potentiality  for  the  evolution  of  the  physical  cosmos  in 
its  mass  and  energy,  must  necessarily  imply  the  previous  ex- 
istence of  some  power,  or  rathfcr  Personality,  that  thus  en- 
dowed it.  Hence,  even  Haeckel's  own  premises  imply  a  super- 
natural Creator  back  of  physical  nature  as  a  creature. 

Moreover,  it  would  not  help  matters  to  assume  back  of 
that  ether  some  still  more  primary  substance  or  energy,  from 
which  it  might  have  derived  as  an  endowment  that  supposed 
potentiality  for  the  evolving  of  the  cosmos.  Such  an  assump- 
tion of  some  still  more  primary  element  than  the  ether,  would 
immediately  necessitate  the  postulation  of  a  something  still 
more  fundamental,  and  so  on  Indefinitely.  And  yet,  such 
could  not  continue  infinitely,  as  there  could  be  no  infinite 
number  of  such  successive  steps.  Such  reasoning  would  be  as 
unsatisfying  as  was  the  reasoning  of  those  who  held  that  the 
earth  rested  by  its  four  corners  upon  the  backs  of  four  huge 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  229 

elephants,  or  that  it  somehow  rested  upon  the  shoulders  of 
some  mythical  Atlas,  as  those  elephants  or  that  god  Atlas 
would  necessarily  have  to  rest  upon  something  still  more  funda- 
mental. Indeed,  such  reasoning,  instead  of  accounting  for 
ultimate  existence,  only  deepens  its  mystery.  It  does  not 
reach  the  ultimate;  it  only  pushes  it  back  into  still  greater 
mysteriousness.  The  only  possible  cause,  beyond  which  there 
would  be  no  need  of  another,  must  be  an  infinite  Will,  or  a 
spiritual  Personality.  Such  an  undivided  and  indivisible  en- 
tity alone  can  be  infinite;  only  an  infinite  entity  can  be  self- 
existent;  only  a  self-existent  entity  can  be  eternal;  only  an 
infinite,  eternal,  self-existent  entity  can  be  a  creator  in  the 
absolute  sense;  and  only  in  such  an  ultimate  reality  as  a  pure 
cause,  can  reason  rest  and  be  satisfied. 

And  yet,  this  very  failure  of  mere  speculative  philosophy, 
in  its  attempt  to  explain  existence,  is  itself  a  groping  after  that 
something  that  does  have  existence  in  reality;  namely,  the  only 
eternal  reality,  the  omnific  Deity.  And,  indeed,  this  unsuccess- 
ful search  for  ultimate  truth,  is  itself  thus  an  evidence  of  its 
existence.  And  thus,  the  final  testimony  of  the  speculative 
philosopher,  as  well  as  that  of  the  pure  physical  scientist,  con- 
firms our  conclusion;  namely,  that  the  universe  is  a  creation 
ex  nihilo  by  a  transcendent  Personality. 

7      THE    INEVITABLE    CONCLUSION    FROM   THE    ETHER    THEORY 

OF    MATTER 

Upon  the  basis  of  this  theory,  a  temporal  universe,  created  in 
the  beginning  ex  nihilo,  and  finally  again  dissolving  or  passing 
in  nihilum,  would  thus  stand  out  as  virtually  a  demonstrated 
fact.  Thus,  back  of  its  origination  and  energy  it  must  have 
had  Will,  an  infinite  Personality,  as  its  Cause.  Hence,  all 
things  must  have  their  cause  and  subsist  in  Will  alone,  as  the 
only  ultimate  eternal  entity,  as  already  noted.  This  thought 
is  thus  also  expressed  by  Alfred  Weber:  "Modern  science  has 
reduced  matter  to  force,  and  Leibniz  very  aptly  said :  No 
substance  without  effort.  Now,  to  make  effort  means  to  will. 
If  effort  constitutes  the  essence  of  matter,  the  will  must  be 
the  basis,  the  substance,  and  the  generative  cause  of  matter. 
On  the  other  hand,  effort  is  also  the  source  of  perception,  for 
there  can  be  no  perception  without  attention,  and  no  attention 


230  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

without  effort.  Perception  proceeds  from  will,  and  not  vice 
versa.  Hence,  the  will  isj  in  the  last  analysis,  the  higher  unity 
of  Force  and  idea  ...  it  is  being  in  its  fulness.  Everything 
else  is  merely  a  phenomenon"  (History  of  Philosophy,  tr. 
Frank  Thilly,  pp.  600-601).  One  might  not  wish  to  go  the 
full  length  of  the  conclusions  involved  in  this  statement;  but 
it  undoubtedly  expresses  a  profound  truth  as  to  the  cause  of 
matter  and  therefore  of  the  existing  universe. 

The  evidence  for  a  temporal  universe  is  truly  cumulative 
in  its  nature.  And  the  ether  theory  of  matter,  as  above  out- 
lined, is  a  weighty  addition  to  that  cumulative  evidence.  And, 
whether  we  adopt  or  accept  one  form  of  the  theory  or  another, 
the  final  conclusion  must  inevitably  be  the  same:  the  universe 
will  have  an  end,  and  it  also  had  a  beginning.  Therefore,  it 
must  have  been  created  in  time;  and  that  creation  must  have 
been  out  of  nothing,  by  a  transcendent  Will. 


VI  CONCLUSION  IN  SUMMARY:  THE  UNIVERSE 
TEMPORAL  ACCORDING  TO  ALL  THESE 
THEORIES  OF  MATTER. 

From  the  above  consideration  of  the  five  principal  theories 
of  matter,  it  is  seen  that,  upon  the  basis  of  any  and  all  of 
them,  the  physical  universe  is  by  nature  temporal.  It  had  a 
beginning,  and  it  will  have  an  end.  Matter  itself  slowly  dis- 
integrates and  energy  ultimately  disappears.  The  law  of  the 
conservation  of  matter  is  thus  no  more  a  demonstrated  fact 
than  that  of  the  conservation  of  energy,  of  which  we  have  also 
spoken.  Sir  Oliver  Lodge  has  truly  said,  ''This  law  [that  of 
the  conservation  of  matter]  has  been  called  the  sheet-anchor 
of  chemistry,  but  it  is  very  far  from  being  self-evident;  and 
its  statement  involves  the  finding  of  a  property  of  matter 
which  experimentally  shall  remain  unchanged,  although  nearly 
every  other  property  is  modified"  {Life  and  Matter,  p.  21). 
And  of  similar  import  are  the  following  words  by  another 
man  of  science:  "It  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  theory 
of  evolution,  .  .  .  that  matter  itself  is  eternal.  .  .  .  But  we 
doubt  whether  any  physical  philosopher  of  the  present  day 
would  be  satisfied  to  accept  any  demonstration  of  the  eternity 


Evidence  from  the  Nature  of  Matter  231 

of  matter.  .  .  .  He  would  .  .  .  admit  that  his  experience  no 
more  sufficed  to  settle  the  question  than  the  observation  of  an 
animal  for  a  single  day  would  settle  the  question  of  the  dura- 
tion of  its  life,  or  prove  that  it  had  neither  beginning  nor 
end"   (Newcomb:  Side-Lights  of  Astronoriiy,  pp.  58-59). 

As  has  been  seen,  energy  and  matter,  according  to  some  of 
the  greatest  scientists,  are  so  related  as  to  exist  together  and 
to  disappear  together.  They  cannot  really  be  separated.  With 
the  dissolution  of  molecular  structures  the  unstable  atomic 
elements,  with  their  intra-atomic  energy,  remain.  These,  In 
their  ultimate  nature,  are  held  to  be  energy.  And,  with  the 
dissolution  of  the  atomic  structures  the  intra-atomic  energies 
must  disappear.  Thus,  so-called  matter  Is  constantly  being 
transformed  into  the  ultimate  energy  at  the  foundation  of  all, 
while  that  energy  will  Itself  as  certainly  cease.  Therefore, 
though  by  artificial  methods  or  means  man  cannot  annihilate 
matter,  nor  destroy  energy,  but  can  only  change  both,  by  na- 
ture's own  Inherent  forces  the  destruction  of  both  Is  con- 
stantly taking  place.  Though  we  cannot  destroy  or  simplify 
the  atom,  by  the  Inherent  forces  of  radioactivity  this  Is  cease- 
lessly being  done.  And,  what  is  true  of  the  atomic  structure, 
Is  true  of  nature  as  a  cosmic  whole. 

Nor  can  we  create  either  matter  or  energy.  And  j^et,  not 
only  does  the  temporal  nature  of  matter  i?nply  Its  beginning  or 
existence  and  therefore  a  creation,  but  by  other  evidence  more 
direct  Is  this  almost  incontrovertlbly  demonstrated.  Indeed, 
very  recently  some  scientists  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
matter  may  possibly  even  now  be  in  process  of  formation  or 
creation,  by  Inherent  forces  In  nature,  as  also  it  is  even  now 
by  similar  forces  In  process  of  destruction. 

But  even  if  this  were  the  case.  It  would  surely  not  explain 
away  a  creative  Deity.  If  It  were  true,  It  would  simply  mean 
that  nature  w^as  originally  so  endowed  with  the  necessary 
forces  as  to  make  these  supposed  processes  possible.  And,  of 
course,  their  ultimate  Cause  would  have  to  be  none  other  than 
the  One  to  Whom  all  other  theories  conduct  the  honest  in- 
vestigator and  searcher  after  truth.  And,  Indeed,  upon  the 
basis  of  such  a  theory  of  present  creative  and  destructive 
processes,  the  temporal  nature  of  the  universe  would  become  all 
the  more  evident  and  certain.  Temporality  everywhere,  not 
only  as  to  a  beginning  but  also  as  to  an  end,  would  thus  flash 


232  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

forth  from  every  point  of  the  universal  whole.  And,  of 
course,  such  successive  creations  and  destructions  could  not 
form  an  endless  cycle;  and  therefore  as  a  whole  the  universe 
must  have  had  a  beginning  and  would  have  to  have  an  end. 
Moreover,  even  the  least  balance  in  favor  of  the  destructive 
process  would  hasten  universal  annihilation. 

Furthermore,  it  is  almost  certain  that  the  present  energy 
of  the  universe  is  the  result  or  effect  of  this  destructive  or  dis- 
integrating process  of  so-called  matter.  Thus,  while  radium 
is  disintegrating  there  is  a  manifestation  of  energy,  and  when 
disintegration  has  been  accomplished,  its  energy  has  ceased. 
So,  as  electricity  is  only  the  passing  of  electrons  from  atoms 
to  atoms,  it,  too,  is  the  result  of  disintegration.  And,  when 
that  disintegration  has  gone  to  the  point  of  equalization  or 
equilibrium,  the  current  stops  and  energy  disappears.^  And, 
if  the  electron  is  nothing  but  energy,  with  its  passage  in  elec- 
tricity, etc.,  there  must  be  a  dematerialization  of  matter.  What 
we  call  matter  would  thus  be  only  the  manifestation  of  energy, 
and  would  therefore  disappear  when  that  energy  would  be 
spent. 

It  is,  therefore,  incontrovertibly  true  that,  according  to  any 
form  of  the  kinetic  theory  of  matter,  the  universe  would  neces- 
sarily be  a  temporal  entity,  and  that  with  the  equalization  or 
ultimate  dissipation  of  its  energy,  or  of  all  its  motions,  it 
would  certainly  wholly  pass  away.  So  also  upon  the  basis  of 
any  theory  of  matter  whatsoever,  because  in  toto  it  must 
necessarily  be  a  finite  entity,  the  universe  must  be  temporal  and 
must,  therefore,  have  been  created  by  a  transcendent  Creator. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

EVIDENCE  FROM  DESIGN  IN  NATURE,  NECES- 
SARILY IMPLYING  ITS  CREATION  IN  TIME 
BY  A  DESIGNING  CAUSE  OR  CREATOR. 

All  nature,  both  in  its  cosmic  unity  and  in  its  every  detail, 
appears  as  an  effect  or  as  an  event.  From  electron  to  star, 
everything  appears  and  acts  as  part  of  a  mighty  machine, 
adapted  and  related  to  everything  else,  each  fitting  into  its  own 
suited  place  in  the  complete  and  perfect  whole.  Thus,  in 
everything,  from  particle  to  universe,  from  dead  matter  to  the 
human  soul,  design  is  clearly  manifest,  that  it  was  made 
for  a  specific  place  and  purpose.  Indeed,  it  would  be  in- 
finitely more  difficult  to  believe  the  universe  to  have  thus  eter- 
nally existed  or  to  have  developed  by  so-called  chance,  than  that 
it  was  created  by  a  personal  Divinity  with  design,  in  time. 
Thus,  the  great  whole  exists  upon  a  sublime  plan,  so  that  to 
the  very  last  element  it  must  have  had  its  existence  first  as  an 
idea  in  the  mind  of  a  Designer,  a  creative  Deity. 

In  this  chapter  we  shall  consider  this  evident  design  in  na- 
ture, as  further  absolutely  unmistakable  evidence  that  the 
universe  has  not  existed  from  eternity,  but  that  it  is  the 
product  of  a  supreme  intelligent  Will. 

As  we  have  said,  the  universe  exists  upon  a  mighty  plan. 
All  its  parts  are  related  to  all  other  parts  with  mathematical 
precision.  The  mighty  velocities  and  revolutions  of  the  heav- 
enly bodies  are  according  to  rigid  mathematical  formulas. 
The  heavenly  bodies  are  weighed  and  balanced  against  one 
another  with  more  accuracy  than  could  be  attained  in  the 
laboratory  with  the  most  delicate  scale.  Their  weights,  dis- 
tances, orbital  velocities,  etc.,  are  more  delicately  measured  and 
adjusted  than  in  the  most  perfect  clockwork.  Indeed,  without 
this,  the  calculation  of  eclipses,  etc.,  would  be  impossible;  all 
science  and  mechanics  would  be  impracticable.     And,  on  the 

233 


234  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

other  hand,  with  a  perfect  knowledge  thereof,  men  would  be 
able  to  calculate,  for  any  definite  past  or  future  time,  the  place 
and  the  velocity  of  any  body  in  all  the  countless  stellar  hosts. 
It  might  even  be  said  that,  as  everything  is  affected  by  every- 
thing else,  if  man  could  know  all  the  forces  and  circumstances 
that  enter  into  a  coming  avalanche,  or  even  into  the  growth 
and  fall  of  an  apple,  the  same  might  be  definitely  foretold  for 
any  future  time.  So,  conversely,  under  similarly  ideal  con- 
ditions, from  any  such  individual  object  or  event  the  whole 
complex  series  of  objects  or  events  that  preceded  or  affected  it, 
might  be  calculated.  Or,  it  might  be  said  that  from  any  one 
object  all   other  objects   might  be  determined. 

Thus,  as  all  affect  each  and  each  affects  all,  both  successively 
and  simultaneously,  as  more  fully  shown  in  a  previous  chap- 
ter, all  are  theoretically  in  each  and  each  are  in  all.  The 
whole,  even  to  the  ultimate  electron  of  the  last  star,  is,  in 
accordance  with  an  exquisite  unity  of  design  and  purpose, 
bound  together  and  mutually  related  and  interdependent  in 
one  mighty,  but  no  less  dependent,  universe.  This  would  not, 
however,  preclude  the  possibility  of  interference,  or  of  direct 
operation,  on  the  part  of  its  absolute  Cause  or  Creator. 

To  say,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  universe  is  self-evolved,  as 
Is  often  asserted,  is  as  absurd  as  to  say  that  a  stone  is  self- 
moved.  A  self-evolved  or  self-existent  entity  must  necessarily 
be  infinite,  and  even  to  such  the  word  self-evolved  would  not 
apply.  As  something  must  have  been  first  and  self-existent,  it 
must  have  been  infinite  and  absolute,  or  else  it  would  have  been 
finite  and  therefore  necessarily  related  to  something  else.  And, 
as  that  first  something  was  infinite  it  must  have  been  the  only 
infinite,  as  there  could  be  but  one  infinite  existence,  else  they 
would  in  a  sense  mutually  exclude  each  other.  This  infinite 
must,  therefore,  have  been  the  cause  of  all  else,  a  conclusion 
also  arrived  at  before. 

Again,  to  an  infinite  there  cannot  be  any  evolution  pos- 
sible, by  the  very  nature  of  an  infinite,  already  pointed  out. 
An  infinite  is  unlimited,  absolute,  complete.  It  cannot,  there- 
fore, become  more  unlimited,  more  absolute,  more  complete. 
Therefore,  as  evolution  means  a  development  toward  greater 
completeness,  etc.,  an  infinite  cannot  evolve  or  be  evolved. 
Therefore,  as  the  universe  is  supposedly  evolving,  it  cannot 
be  infinite,  a  fact  already  demonstrated ;  and,  as  it  cannot  be 


Evidence  from  Design  in  "Nature  235 

infinite,  it  cannot  be  self-existent;  and,  as  it  cannot  be  self- 
existent,  it  cannot  be  self-tYolvtd. ;  and,  as  it  cannot  be  self- 
evolved,  it  must  have  been  created,  or  it  must  have  been  or 
be  evolved  by  a  Power  beyond  itself.  And  such  supposed 
evolution  must  necessarily  have  been  preceded  by  an  adequate 
involution  to  make  it  possible.  And  that  Power  back  of  such 
involution  and  evolution  must  have  been  self-existent  and  there- 
fore infinite,  and  therefore  the  cause  of  all  else,  a  conclusion 
also  reached  by  another  process  of  reasoning.  By  that  Power 
the  universe  must  thus  have  first  been  involved  with  all  the 
potentialities  that  were,  by  the  supposed  evolution  through 
secondary  causes,  to  result  in  a  completed  universe — a  goal 
apparently  not  yet  attained,  if  we  accept  the  testimony  of 
philosophic  scientists  themselves. 

Thus,  in  answer  to  the  question  what  caused  and  what 
maintains  existence,  Sir  Oliver  Lodge  makes  the  following 
suggestive  remark:  '*Of  our  own  knowledge  we  are  unable 
to  realize  the  meaning  of  origination  or  of  maintenance;  all 
that  we  ourselves  can  accomplish  in  the  physical  world  is  to 
move  things  into  desired  positions,  and  leave  them  to  act  on 
one  another.  Nevertheless  our  effective  movements  are  all 
inspired  by  thought,  and  so  we  conceive  that  there  must  be 
some  Intelligence  immanent  in  all  the  processes  of  nature,  for 
they  are  not  random  or  purposeless,  but  organized  and  beauti- 
ful"  {The  Substance  of  Faith,  p.  70). 


I    THE  OBJECTION  AGAINST  THE  IDEA  OF  DE- 
SIGN IN  NATURE  ANSWERED 

It  has  been  stoutly  denied  by  many  scientists  that  there  is 
any  design  in  nature.  This  view  is  dogmatically  stated  by 
Haeckel  in  the  following  words:  ''The  development  of  the 
universe  is  a  monistic  mechanical  process,  in  which  we  dis- 
cover no  aim  or  purpose  whatever;  what  we  call  design  in 
the  organic  world  is  a  special  result  of  biological  agencies; 
neither  in  the  evolution  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  nor  in  that  of 
the  crust  of  our  earth  do  we  find  any  trace  of  a  controlling 
purpose — all  is  the  result  of  chance"  ( The  Riddle  of  the  Uni- 
verse, pp.  273-4). 

And   not  only  has   the  presence  of  design   in  nature  been 


236  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

denied,  but  also  any  act  of  an  omnipotent  Creator,  especially 
His  use  of  means,  has  been  denied.  On  this  point,  John  Stuart 
Mill  makes  the  following  declaration:  **It  is  not  too  much 
to  say  that  every  indication  of  Design  in  the  Kosmos  is  so 
much  evidence  against  the  Omnipotence  of  the  Designer.  For 
w^hat  is  meant  by  Design?  Contrivance:  the  adaptation  of 
means  to  an  end.  But  the  necessity  for  contrivance — the  need 
of  employing  means — is  a  consequence  of  the  limitation  of 
povi^er.  Who  would  have  recourse  to  means  if  to  attain  his 
end  his  mere  w^ord  was  sufficient?  The  very  idea  of  means 
implies  that  the  means  have  an  efficacy  which  the  direct  action 
of  the  being  who  employs  them  has  not.  Otherwise  they  are 
not  means,  but  an  incumbrance.  .  .  .  Wisdom  and  contri- 
vance are  shown  in  overcoming  difficulties,  and  there  is  no 
room  for  them  in  a  Being  for  whom  no  difficulties  exist" 
{Three  Essays  on  Religion:  Theism,   1884,  pp.   176-7). 

This  objection  of  Mill,  if  analyzed,  leads,  however,  to  a 
counter  objection  to  his  objection.  If  Mill  could  contend 
that  "Design  in  the  Kosmos  is  so  much  evidence  against  the 
omnipotence  of  the  Designer,"  we  contend  that  his  contention, 
by  just  that  much,  limits  that  omnipotence.  An  omnipotence 
that  is  not  able  to  work  by  design  or  through  means  is  not 
omnipotent.  Indeed,  a  being  (God)  that  would  not  be  able 
to  operate  through  means  would  be  as  truly  limited,  though 
in  a  different  way,  as  a  being  (man)  that  is  not  able  to 
operate  without  means.  If  Mill  had  said  that  necessary  means 
or  design  would  limit  omnipotence,  he  would  have  spoken 
correctly.  Man  is  limited  b^  necessary  means.  And,  if  de- 
sign or  means  in  creation  were  necessary  with  the  Creator,  He, 
too,  would  be  limited.  But  that  is  precisely  w^hat  we  con- 
tend is  not  the  case.  However,  Mill  inadvertently  speaks  of 
"the  necessity  for  contrivance — the  need  of  employing  means"; 
and  thus  he  really  nullifies  his  own  argument  against  de- 
sign. It  is,  therefore.  Mill  who  limits  the  Creator's  omnip- 
otence by  design  or  means,  by  reading  into  them  necessity  on 
the  part  of  the  Creator;  but  the  mere  use  of  means  by  the 
Creator,  and  the  presence  of  design  in  nature,  do  not  thus 
limit  Him. 

On  the  contrary,  the  very  necessary  freedom  of  an  absolute 
Creator  implies  freedom  of  choice  in  the  method  of  creation. 
And  to  choose  means,  after  He  had  first  created  them,  would 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  237 

only  be  a  glorifying  of  the  means  in  the  further  operations  of 
creation.  In  illustration  of  this  fact,  we  would  point  to  the 
method  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  in  the  raising  of  Lazarus.  He 
first  directed  men  present  to  remove  the  stone  from  the  grave, 
because  this  could  be  done  by  ordinary  human  agency  or 
means.  Then,  with  an  exercise  of  His  own  power,  he  called 
Lazarus  to  life,  because  this  could  not  be  done  by  merely  hu- 
man means.  And  then  he  directed  the  men  to  remove  the 
bands,  etc.,  because  this  again  could  be  done  by  them.  And 
this,  surely,  was  a  method  of  choice  and  not  of  necessity.  Al- 
though this  is  not  exactly  parallel  to  the  operation  of  the 
Creator  as  a  pure  Spirit  in  using  already  created  means,  it  is 
certainly  closely  analogous  to  it.  Indeed,  there  are  many 
things  that  a  thoughtful  parent  requires  a  child  to  do  that 
he  could  better  do  himself  without  the  child's  help,  while  other 
things  he  does  because  the  child  could  not  do  them.  But  this 
does  not  limit  the  parent  in  so  far  as  the  cooperation  of  the 
child  is  concerned.  Neither  does  the  one  voluntary  or  chosen 
method  of  the  Creator,  any  more  than  any  other  chosen  method, 
limit  His  omnipotence. 

And,  as  for  design,  no  one  should  deny  design  to  an  infinite 
mind  any  more  than  to  a  finite  mind.  To  deny  design  would 
be  equivalent  to  denying  intelligence.  To  deny  intelligence 
would  be  equivalent  to  denying  mind.  And,  to  deny  mind 
would  be  to  deny  personality.  And,  an  impersonal  Creator 
would  not  only  be  an  impossibility,  as  already  noted,  but  it 
would  even  be  a  contradiction  in  terms,  as  the  very  name 
Creator  implies  personality,  and  a  personality  that  is  con- 
scious. 

Moreover,  here,  too,  our  very  limitation  makes  the  full  con- 
ception oi  an  infinite  and  absolute  Creator  impossible,  as  that 
limitation  unconsciously  impels  the  thinker  to  ascribe  limitation 
to  the  Absolute.  But  the  fallacy  in  Mill's  argument,  of  course, 
is  in  making  the  Creator's  operations,  in  accordance  with  de- 
sign or  wisdom  and  through  means,  a  necessity  in  the  sense  in 
which  means  to  us  are  a  necessity.  In  speaking  of  design  in 
connection  with  the  Creator's  work,  w^e  must,  of  course,  not 
lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  we  cannot  separate  design  from  act 
in  an  infinite  and  eternal  Being.  A  chronological  sequence 
of  these  two  things,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  exists  in  man, 
there  surely  cannot  be  to  an  eternal  or  timeless  Personality. 


238  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

This  denial  of  the  existence  of  design  or  purpose  In  nature 
has,  of  course,  been  the  case  especially  with  reference  to  liv- 
ing organisms.  Paley's  famous  argument  has  not  only  been 
rejected  as  valueless,  but  it  has  even  been  ridiculed.  But  the 
arguments  against  design  have  been  based  partly  upon  mis- 
apprehension or  a  confusion  of  Ideas,  and  partly  upon  un- 
proved assumptions.  The  terms  Designer  and  design  as  ap- 
plied to  Deity  must  not  be  considered  as  exactly  parallel  to 
the  same  terms  as  applied  to  man.  The  Deit}-  is  not  a  cor- 
poreal conditioned  Being;  and  the  Ideas  of  design  and  act 
cannot  be  separated  in  an  absolute,  eternal,  spiritual  Personality. 
But,  even  if  Paley's  argument  be  considered  open  to  the  charge 
that  It  attempts  to  prove  too  much  and  that  It  is  too  material- 
istic in  Its  nature,  It  must  nevertheless  stand  as  a  highly  suff- 
gestive  explanation  of  the  ways  of  God  in  nature. 

And,  to  say  that  to  speak  of  design  Is  merely  begging  the 
question,  as  by  the  very  idea  of  that  term  we  already  imply 
a  designer,  Is  an  argument  of  straw.  One  might  with  equal 
force  object  to  Darwin's  term  "natural  selection,"  by  arguing 
that  by  that  term  he  Implied  a  selector  and  therefore  purpose 
or  design.  Indeed,  It  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  get  away  from 
terms  that  express  human  ideas  which  seem  to  be  almost  uni- 
versally instinctive.  Our  earth-developed  language  is  alto- 
gether Inadequate  to  express  totally  transcendental  Ideas.  We 
cannot,  by  unenlightened  minds,  rise  above  ourselves  and  the 
earth,  with  the  naturally  associated  ideas  and  language.  And 
even  to  select  a  term  of  passive  meaning,  like  "survival  of  the 
fittest,"  does  not  altogether  rid*  the  subject  of  difficulty.  To 
speak  of  a  survival  of  the  fittest  is  merely  to  assume  that 
they  are  the  fittest  that  survive. 

We  are,  therefore,  content  to  retain  the  old  word  design 
as  applied  to  nature,  until  a  better  word  will  have  been  fur- 
nished to  express  that  definite  idea  for  which  we  use  the  term. 
And,  surely,  to  deny  design  in  nature  in  the  sense  of  purpose 
or  order,  in  which  it  has  been  used,  Is  to  deny  the  very  Ideas 
of  purpose  and  order  even  in  the  thoughts  and  works  of  man, 
nature's  crown.  And  to  deny  them  there,  on  the  plea  that 
man  is  not  a  mentally  and  physically  free  agent,  is  to  make 
our  life  an  illusion.  Then,  all  the  arguments  of  these  objec- 
tors to  a  designing  Deity,  are  also  nothing  but  Illusion  and  con- 
fusion.    Sir  Oliver  Lodge  well  said,  "The  essence  of  mind  Is 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  239 

design  and  purpose.  There  are  some  who  deny  that  there  is 
any  design  or  purpose  in  the  universe  at  all:  but  how  can  that 
be  maintained  when  humanity  itself  possesses  these  attributes?" 
{Life  and  Matter,  p.  102.)  And,  as  to  human  design,  as 
against  the  idea  of  materialistic  automatism,  the  same  author 
says,  "Matter  is  the  vehicle  of  the  mind,  but  it  is  dominated 
and  transcended  by  it"  {Ibid.,  p.  107).  And  Sir  William 
Thompson,  in  his  address  before  the  British  Association,  1871, 
as  published  in  Nature,  Volume  IV.,  declared  for  design  in 
the  following  emphatic  words:  "I  feel  profoundly  convinced 
that  the  argument  of  design  has  been  greatly  too  much  lost 
sight  of  in  recent  zoological  speculations.  [Here  is  a  brief 
comment  on  Paley's  Natural  Theology.']  .  .  .  Overpower- 
ingly  strong  proofs  of  intelligence  and  benevolent  design  lie 
all  around  us,  teaching  us  that  all  living  beings  depend  on  one 
ever-acting  Creator  and  Ruler"  (p.  270).  And  no  less  em- 
phatic are  the  following  words  of  Samuel  Butler,  at  the  con- 
clusion of  his  work  on  Evolution  Old  and  New,  191 1,  "It 
has  been  the  object  of  the  foregoing  work  to  show  that  those 
who  take  this  line  are  wrong,  and  that  evolution  not  only 
tolerates  design,  but  cannot  get  on  without  it"   (p.  408). 

II     DESIGN    MANIFEST    IN    EVERY   LIVING 
ORGANISM 

It  is  too  evident  to  require  argument  that  living  organisms 
are  constructed  and  adapted  for  specific  ends.  Every  organ  or 
limb  is  a  tool  to  perform  a  definite  function.  Paley  long  ago 
called  attention  to  the  eye  of  the  eagle  as  compared  with  that 
of  the  owl,  and  to  the  wonderful  poise  of  the  human  head  for 
universal  motion,  and  to  the  wonderful  binding  down,  by  a 
ligament,  of  the  tendons  running  from  the  leg  to  the  foot, 
etc.  To  say  that  these  are  only  cases  of  spontaneous  adapta- 
tions or  appetency  does  not  explain  them.  The  fact  is  that 
the  binding  down  of  the  tendons  is  in  direct  opposition  to  any 
such  supposed  spontaneous  action.  By  spontaneous  action,  in- 
stead of  being  bound  down  they  would  tend  to  be  more  and 
more  released.  Many  other  equally  striking  cases  might  be 
cited,  but  these  are  enough  to  illustrate  our  point. 

Moreover,  the  provisions  of  pleasure  and  pain  are  too  mani- 
fest to  need  more  than  a  passing  notice.     The  very  fact  that 


240  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

an  act  is  pleasurable  or  painful  has  the  purposive  effect  to 
cause  a  desire  to  repeat  or  to  avoid  it.  The  sensations  of 
pleasure  and  pain  are  inseparably  connected,  as  secondary 
causes,  with  the  preservation  of  the  individual,  as  well  as  of  the 
race.  They  are  teleological  means  to  a  greater  end.  And  the 
provisions  of  sex,  as  complex  means  existing  even  in  different 
or  separate  individuals  for  the  propagation  and  perpetuation  of 
the  species,  afford  an  unanswerable  evidence  for  a  designing 
Mind,  as  ultimately  superintending  the  multiform  operations 
of  nature. 

In  a  late  work  by  Alfred  Russel  Wallace  {The  World  of 
Life),  design  is  elaborately  and  conclusively  demonstrated  from 
various  organisms.  His  argument  from  birds  and  insects  for 
"an  organizing  and  directive  life-principle,"  an  organizing 
mind  (pp.  309,  sq.),  is  unanswerable.  And  so  his  chapter  on 
Mystery  of  the  Cell  (pp.  361,  sq.)  should  bring  conviction 
not  only  to  every  modern  doubting  Thomas,  but  even  to  the 
avowed  atheist.  Indeed,  the  very  idea  conveyed  by  the  word 
organism  or  organ  so  evidently  implies  that  of  an  organizer, 
that  the  most  pronounced  skeptic  cannot  get  along  without  it. 
Thus,  Kerner  tried  to  explain  the  living  organism  in  terms 
of  what  he  called  vital  force;  Thomas  Huxley,  in  terms  of 
what  he  called  the  organizing  power;  and  Ernst  Haeckel  in 
terms  of  unconscious  cell-souls.  In  Haeckel  and  many  others, 
in  ascribing  a  sort  of  life,  self-activity  and  consciousness  to 
matter,  we  have  a  return  to  a  form  of  ancient  Greek  hylozoism. 
In  trying  to  eliminate  a  designing  Creator,  these  men  have  thus 
inadvertently  created  a  supposed  unconscious  or  impersonal 
creator  or  cause  of  their  own.  A  cause  they  feel  compelled  to 
recognize  back  of  organisms;  and,  hence,  their  respective 
special  theories. 

Those  who  would  follow  this  particular  line  of  thought  on 
design  in  organisms  further,  will  find  in  the  above  work  by 
Wallace,  and  in  Janet's  Final  Causes,  as  well  as  in  some  ex- 
cellent works  on  Theism,  a  fuller  development  of  this  sub- 
ject. 

As  already  noted,  there  have  been  men,  who,  on  finding 
themselves  unable  to  explain  the  processes  of  life  without  de- 
sign, have  looked  for  an  explanation  in  the  life  of  the  organism 
Itself,  thus  making  it  a  self-evolved  entity.    The  great  pioneers 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  24I 

of  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  especially  Buifon  (i 707-1 788), 
Erasmus  Darwin  (1732-1802)  and  Lamarck  (1744-1829),  in- 
clined to  this  view.  But,  this  would  in  effect  be  equivalent  to 
deifying  the  life  of  the  organism  itself.  Thus,  the  creative  and 
directive  force  or  agency  in  organisms,  with  these  men,  would 
be  the  vital  force  of  the  organism  itself. 

Nevertheless,  whatever  form  of  the  theory  of  evolution  one 
may  choose  to  adopt,  he  can  no  more  get  away  from  a  design- 
ing Creator  than  if  he  regarded  all  things  created  full-fledged 
and  perfect  by  an  immediate  act  of  Deity.  This  is  acknowl- 
edged even  by  many  of  the  greatest  authorities  on  the  doc- 
trine of  evolution.  Thus  Wallace  expressed  himself  on  this 
point  as  follows:  '1  argue  that  they  [structures  of  organisms 
referred  to]  necessarily  imply  first,  a  Creative  Power,  which 
so  constituted  matter  as  to  render  these  marvels  possible;  next, 
a  directive  Mind,  which  is  demanded  at  every  step  of  the  proc- 
ess we  term  growth  and  often  look  upon  as  so  simple  and 
natural  a  process  as  to  require  no  explanation;  and,  lastly,  an 
ultimate  Purpose,  in  the  very  existence  of  the  whole  vast  life- 
world  in  all  its  long  course  of  evolution  throughout  the  eons 
of  geological  time.  This  Purpose,  which  alone  throws  light 
on  many  of  the  mysteries  of  its  mode  of  evolution,  I  hold  to 
be  the  development  of  Man,  the  one  crowning  product  of  the 
whole  cosmic  process  of  life-development ;  the  only  being  which 
can  to  some  extent  comprehend  nature"  {The  World  of  Life, 
191 1,   Preface,  vii.). 

And,  that  the  so-called  natural  selection  of  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  could  in  no  way  be  mere  chance  or  accident,  is 
openly  acknowledged  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  naturalists, 
among  them  such  authorities  as  Mivart,  Prof.  Owen  and  John 
Fiske.  The  last  named  says  on  this  point,  "The  Darwinian 
theory,  properly  understood,  replaces  as  much  teleology  as  it 
destroys.  From  the  first  dawning  of  life  we  see  all  things 
working  together  toward  one  mighty  goal,  the  evolution  of  the 
most  exalted  spiritual  qualities  which  characterize  Humanity" 
{The  Destiny  of  Man,  p.  113).  This  fact  he  further  de- 
veloped in  the  second  volume  of  his  Cosmic  Philosophy. 

We  believe,  therefore,  that  further  argument  on  our  part, 
in  proof  of  the  fact  that  even  the  theory  of  the  so-called  evolu- 
tion of  species  does  not  eliminate  design  from  nature,  and 
therefore  a  designing  Creator,  is  made  unnecessary  by  the  em- 


242  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

phatic  testimony  of  even  its  greatest  defenders.  Indeed,  de- 
sign in  living  organisms  has  generallj^  been  regarded  as  so  evi- 
dent, and  indeed  convincing,  that  it  has  hitherto  been  made  the 
chief  argument  from  nature  for  the  existence  of  a  Supreme 
Being  operating  through  nature.  Writers  on  Theism,  a  gen- 
eration ago,  used  this  argument  with  great  force  to  convince 
doubters  and  unbelievers  of  the  various  types,  of  the  tenable- 
ness  of  the  Christian  position,  as  well  as  to  strengthen  believers 
in  their  faith.  And  some  of  the  men  who  viewed  this  mani- 
fest design  in  organisms  more  especially  from  the  scientific 
angle,  went  to  the  extreme  of  well-nigh  declaring  for  a  re- 
ligion of  nature,  almost  to  the  ignoring  of  the  need  of  a 
supplementary  Revelation.  It  should  be  needless  to  say,  how- 
ever, that  such  an  extreme  position  is  equally  dangerous  to 
truth  and  religion.  And  the  reaction  against  the  very  idea  of 
design,  noted  above,  might  be  expected  to  be  a  natural  conse- 
quence. While  design  in  organic  nature  is  thus  so  evident  that 
it  should  require  hardly  any  argument  in  proof  of  it,  it  alone 
is  nevertheless  altogether  insufficient  to  form  an  adequate  basis 
for  a  religion  of  nature. 

But,  not  only  in  organic  nature,  but  also  no  less  in  inor- 
ganic nature,  is  design  everywhere  manifest.  And,  as  this 
opens  up  even  a  larger  field  of  investigation,  a  field  hitherto 
not  adequately  explored  for  evidences  of  design,  it  deserves 
here  a  much  fuller  consideration  than  that  of  organic  nature. 
To  such  a  consideration  we  shall,  therefore,  now  proceed. 

Ill     DESIGN    MANIFEST   IN    EVERY   PART   AND 
EVERY  LAW  OF  INORGANIC  NATURE 

Let  us  now  contemplate  inorganic  nature  and  set  forth  such 
evidences  of  design  as  are  there  unmistakably  manifest.  This 
rather  neglected  field  for  the  study  of  teleology  affords  us 
an  additional  proof  for  the  temporal  nature  of  the  universe 
and  its  necessary  creation  out  of  nothing  by  a  designing  Deity. 

I       THE    CONSTITUTIVE    PARTICLES    OF    COSMIC    NATURE    LIKE 
MANUFACTURED   ARTICLES 

About  eighty  so-called  primary  elements  are  known.  And 
all  these  chemical  elements  are  composed  of  atoms,  not  to  speak 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  243 

at  this  point  of  further  subdivisions.  These  atoms  are  so 
small  that  a  drop  of  water  would  contain  approximately  500 
quintillion  atoms  of  hydrogen  and  250  quintillion  atoms  of 
oxygen.  That  is,  it  would  require  a  sphere  of  many  millions 
of  these  atoms  to  be  seen  under  a  powerful  microscope.  And 
yet,  these  atoms  are  weighed  and  balanced  against  other  atoms, 
in  nature's  mysterious  laboratory,  with  absolute  precision. 
And  though  there  are  so  many  of  these  atoms  throughout  the 
vast  stretches  of  the  material  universe  as  to  be  beyond  all 
human  comprehension,  there  are  probably  but  a  few  more  than 
fourscore  different  kinds.  And  those  of  the  same  kind,  or  of 
the  same  elementary  substance,  under  similar  conditions,  are 
apparently  absolutely  alike  in  weights,  etc.,  while  those  of  dif- 
ferent substances  are  always  different.  The  atoms  are  thus 
more  perfect  than  if  they  had  been  made  by  the  most  perfect 
artificial  means. 

Taking  the  hydrogen  atom  as  the  standard  of  weight  and 
calling  it  i,  the  oxygen  atom  weighs  approximately  16,  that 
of  silver  107,  that  of  radium  226,  etc.  Nor  do  these  relative 
weights,  under  similar  conditions,  vary  the  minutest  fraction. 
Thus  different  atoms  are  apparently  fitted  to  one  another  by 
exact  weights,  etc.,  necessary  for  the  constitutions  of  the  vari- 
ous different  molecules  and  complex  substances,  just  as  the 
various  prepared  materials  that  enter  into  the  make-up  of 
different  complex  buildings  are  unmistakably  made  for  one 
another. 

The  atoms,  in  their  chemical  unions  with  one  another,  form 
molecules.  And  these  are  of  two  kinds,  molecules  of  ele- 
ments composed  of  atoms  of  the  same  kind  or  substance,  and 
molecules  of  compounds,  composed  of  atoms  of  different  kinds 
or  substances.  So,  many  elementary  molecules  consist  of  two 
or  more  atoms  of  the  same  kind.  Thus  the  hydrogen,  oxygen 
and  nitrogen  molecules  have  been  found  to  have  two  atoms 
apiece  (diatomic).  And,  when  we  come  to  the  various  chemi- 
cal compounds,  we  find  the  molecules  generally  much  more 
complex  and  the  atoms  more  numerous.  Thus  in  nitric  acid 
(HNO3)  there  are  one  atom  of  hydrogen,  one  of  nitrogen  and 
three  of  oxygen.  In  the  Caffeine  (CgHjoN^Oa),  found  in 
coffee,  there  are  eight  atoms  of  carbon,  ten  of  hydrogen,  four 
of  nitrogen  and  two  of  oxygen.  And  the  molecules  of  many 
other  compounds  are  still  more  complex.     What  wonderful 


244  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

structures!  What  skill  or  intelligence  must  be  necessary  to 
build  up  such  complex  infinitesimal  structures  in  their  count- 
less duplicates,  all  exactly  alike  for  the  same  substance!  Yet, 
so  wonderful  are  the  workings  of  nature's  mysterious  labora- 
tory that  no  two  of  the  same  kind  among  the  countless  number 
also  of  these  molecules,  wherever  found  throughout  nature, 
differ  in  the  least  detail.  Surely,  a  law  here  that  requires 
an  infinitely  intelligent  law-Giver!  Thus  Clerk-Maxwell 
declared  in  a  lecture  before  the  British  Association  at  Bed- 
ford, "None  of  the  processes  of  Nature  since  the  time  when 
Nature  began,  have  produced  the  slightest  difference  in  the 
properties  of  any  molecule.  On  the  other  hand,  the  exact 
equality  of  each  molecule  to  all  others  of  the  same  kind  gives 
it,  as  Sir  John  Herschel  has  well  said,  the  essential  character 
of  a  manufactured  article,  and  precludes  the  idea  of  its  being 
eternal  and  self-existent.  Science  is  incompetent  to  reason 
upon  the  creation  of  matter  itself  out  of  nothing.  We  have 
reached  the  utmost  of  our  thinking  faculties  when  we  have  ad- 
mitted that  because  matter  cannot  be  eternal  and  self-existent, 
it  must  have  been  created"  {Scientific  Papers,  published  by 
Cambridge  University  Press,  1890,  Vol.  II.,  p.  376). 

As  already  stated,  the  atom  and  the  molecule  are  far  below 
the  reach  of  the  most  powerful  microscope.  Some  additional 
facts  as  to  the  sizes  of  these  minute  particles  will  add  further 
evidence  that  they  were  created,  while  they  will  also  enhance 
our  conception  of  their  wonderful  Creator,  Whose  designed 
work  is  thus  perfect  in  its  altnost  seeming  artificiality,  even 
to  every  detail  of  the  infinitesimal. 

According  to  one  calculation,  by  Perrin,  the  oxygen  mole- 
cule measures  2.6X10'^  centimeter  in  diameter.  Or  it  would 
take  about  100,000,000  of  them  side  by  side  to  measure  an 
inch.  Or  it  would  require  about  10^^,  or  one  septillion,  of 
them  for  a  cubic  inch.  Other  calculations  have  brought 
slightly  different  results,  but  not  to  change  the  order  of  magni- 
tude. Thus,  according  to  Meyer's  Kinetic  Theory  of  Gases, 
Tr.  Baynes,  1899,  page  331,  the  mean  diameter  of  a  molecule 
would  be  about  2X10"^  cm.,  or  it  should  require  125,000,000 
molecules  to  measure  a  linear  inch.  That  is,  one  molecule 
would  measure  0.2  micro-micron. 

It  might  be  said  that,  with  the  best  modern  microscope,  it 


Evidence  from  Design  in  "Nature  245 

is  possible  to  distinguish  a  particle  only  /^^^  of  an  inch 
in  diameter.  And  yet  it  would  require  about  600  oxygen 
molecules  side  by  side  to  measure  as  much  as  the  diameter  of 
this  smallest  visible  microscopic  particle.  Thus  it  would  take 
nearly  300,000  oxygen  molecules  arranged  within  a  circle,  or 
about  100,000,000  in  spherical  mass,  to  become  barely  visible 
under  the  most  powerful  microscope. 

Indeed,  the  individual  molecule  is  far  below  the  reach  even 
of  what  is  known  as  the  ultramicroscope,  devised  by  Zsig- 
mondy.  With  this  instrument,  a  particle  in  a  colloidal  so- 
lution   of   gold,    with    a   diameter   of   only   about      '  ^^  J^^ 

=5  '  •'  100,000,000 

of  an  inch,  it  is  claimed  by  some  authorities,  can  be  distin- 
guished. Or,  with  this  arrangement,  a  particle  only  about 
ife  of  the  diameter  of  the  smallest  ordinary  microscopic 
particle  can  be  distinguished.  That  is,  it  would  require 
about  80  ultramicroscopic  particles  side  by  side,  or  over 
260,000  in  spherical  mass,  to  be  distinguished  in  the  most 
powerful  ordinary  microscope.  But,  as  it  would  require  ap- 
proximately 600  oxygen  molecules  side  by  side,  or  100,000,000 
in  spherical  mass,  to  be  seen  with  the  ordinary  microscope,  it 
would  require  about  7  or  8  molecules  side  by  side,  or  ap- 
proximately 300  to  400  in  spherical  mass,  to  be  discerned 
even  with  the  ultramicroscope.  This  would  also  follow  di- 
rectly from  the  fact  that  a  particle  of of  an  inch 

•'  *^  100,000,000 

can  be  distinguished  with  the  ultramicroscope. 

Thus  the  atom  becomes  all  the  more  wonderful  by  its  in- 
conceivable littleness.  And  its  perfection  and  marvelous 
adaptation  for  union  with  other  atoms  thus  stand  forth  all 
the  more  strikingly  as  evidences  of  design  in  their  origina- 
tion. 

And,  wonder  of  wonders!  by  spectrum  analysis  it  has  defin- 
itely been  determined  that  the  same  atom-composed  elements 
that  constitute  the  substances  of  the  earth,  are  also  the  con- 
stituent elements  of  the  sun  and  stars.  And  what  is  true  of 
the  unity  of  the  universe  with  reference  to  its  separate  chemi- 
cal elements,  is  more  and  more  found  also  to  be  true  even 
with  reference  to  the  constitutive  parts  of  it  as  a  cosmic  whole. 
Surely,  design  in  all  this,  and  a  designing  Creator  must  be 
back  of  it!     Thus,  not  only  in  ultimate  minuteness,  but  also 


246  Creation  Ex  Nihil 0 

in  cosmic  unity,  design  becomes  an  unanswerable  evidence  that 
all  things  are  from  the  same  intelligent  creative  Will. 

We  have  thus,  in  the  constitution  of  the  very  elements  as 
building  materials,  a  remarkable  provision  for  the  combina- 
tions of  these  elements  in  the  structures  of  all  substances  in 
the  earth  and  in  the  sun  and  stars.  This  adaptation  is  so  per- 
fect and  so  marvelous  in  its  every  detail  as  to  leave  no  pos- 
sible room  for  doubt  that  it  is  an  intentional  arrangement  for 
the  very  purposes  w^hich  it  subserves.  Surely,  blind  must  he 
be  who  sees  not  the  finger  of  God  in  this  thing.  And  all 
really  thoughtful  men,  whether  they  have  any  religious  con- 
victions or  not,  if  they  lay  all  preconceptions  based  upon  pet 
theories  aside,  are  compelled  to  acknowledge  the  presence  of 
some  wonderful  guiding  hand  in  these  marvelous  adaptations. 
Thus,  even  John  Stuart  Mill,  in  spite  of  his  pronounced  nega- 
tive attitude  toward  all  arguments  from  the  doctrine  of  cause, 
from  consciousness,  and  from  nature  in  general,  for  the  exist- 
ence of  a  creative  Deity,  was  nevertheless  compelled  to  make 
the  following  confession:  "I  think  it  must  be  allowed  that, 
in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge,  the  adaptations  in 
Nature  afford  a  large  balance  of  probability  in  favour  of 
creation  by  intelligence"  {Three  Essays  on  Religion:  Theism, 
p.    174). 

2     evidence    of   design    in    chemical    union    and    the 

"periodic  law" 

The  union  of  atoms  of  one  kind  with  atoms  of  other  kinds 
is  in  a  wonderful  way  according  to  definite  laws,  in  definite 
multiple  proportions.  It  is  always  as  i  to  i,  i  to  2,  2  to  3, 
etc.,  as  for  example  in  hydrochloric  acid  (HCl),  carbon 
dioxide  (CO,),  and  arsenious  oxide  (AsgOg).  Moreover, 
every  kind  of  atom  has  what  are  called  different  affinities  for 
different  other  kinds  of  atoms,  but  In  different  proportions. 
One  atom  of  oxygen  may  be  said  to  unite  with  Itself  two  of 
hydrogen  to  form  water  (HoO),  one  of  carbon  to  form  car- 
bon monoxide  (CO),  while  it  may  be  said  to  require  two  atoms 
of  oxygen  to  unite  with  themselves  one  of  carbon  In  forming 
carbon  dioxide  (CO2).   Thus   an  absolute  law  governs  all  the 


Evidence  jrom  Design  in  Nature  247 

multiform  combinations  in  the  complex  compositions  of  mat- 
ter. This  is  another  wonderful  arrangement,  resulting  in  the 
many  different  kinds  of  compound  substances  for  use  and 
beauty,  of  almost  infinite  variety. 

Moreover,  atoms  of  different  elements  unite  w^ith  each  other 
so  closely  or  intimately  in  forming  molecules  that  in  their  union 
they  lose  every  trace  of  their  individualities  or  characteristic 
properties,  thus  forming  really  what  is  known  as  an  entirely 
different  material  substance.  And  even  the  very  attractions 
that  hold  these  atoms  together  are  just  what  they  should  be 
for  the  variety  of  combinations  of  various  different  atoms. 
Much  more  might  be  said  upon  these  and  other  unmistakable 
evidences  of  design  in  the  laws  of  chemical  union,  so-called 
valency,  etc.,  but  these  facts  are  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

Another  remarkable  evidence  of  design,  closely  related  to 
that  of  chemical  union,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  eighty  or 
more  primary  elements  are  divided  into  groups  or  families 
according  to  what  is  known  as  the  ''Periodic  Law,"  or  the 
law  of  octaves  in  atomic  weights.  This  law  was  in  substance 
discovered  by  several  investigators.  It  was  first  suggested  by 
John  Newlands  in  a  letter  to  Chemical  News  in  1863,  that, 
in  an  arrangement  of  the  elements  from  hydrogen  to  uranium, 
the  various  elements,  like  octaves  in  music,  would  be  similar 
to  the  eighth  above  or  below  them  in  the  series.  In  a  series 
of  papers  in  1864  and  1865,  containing  tables  of  atomic 
weights  in  illustration,  he  gave  more  definite  form  to  the 
principle  suggested,  in  the  latter  year  naming  this  law  the 
"law  of  octaves."  It  might,  however,  be  said  that  this  law 
had  already  been  foreshadowed  by  Prout  (1815)  in  his  in- 
vestigations as  to  atomic  weights,  in  which  he  was  led  to  be- 
lieve all  elements,  as  apparently  whole  numbers  with  hydrogen 
as  I,  to  be  only  condensations  of  hydrogen.  In  Dobereiner's 
''triads,"  suggested  several  years  later,  some  of  the  elements 
of  this  law  were  also  suggested. 

Other  men  soon  applied  themselves  to  further  investigations, 
among  them  Lothar  Meyer,  who  as  early  as  1864  gave  a 
very  suggestive  table,  which  he  very  much  improved  in  1868. 
He  more  definitely  pointed  out  that  the  properties  of  ele- 
ments are  periodic  functions  of  their  atomic  weights.  But  it 
was  the  Russian  chemist  Dmitri   Ivanovich   Mendeleeff   who 


248  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

most  fully  developed  this  law,  in  its  various  applications,  al- 
ready in  connection  with  his  first  published  table  calling  it  the 
"Periodic  Law,"  the  name  by  which  it  is  now  generally 
known. 

According  to  this  wonderful  law,  the  eighth  element  from 
any  other  is  found  to  repeat  properties  of  the  first.  And 
it  is  readily  seen  that,  if  the  weight  of  an  element  is  known, 
its  properties  can  largely  be  determined,  as  the  weight  is  found 
to  fix  its  properties.  JHence,  where  there  occurs  a  gap  in  the 
elements,  it  suggests  a  still  undiscovered  element.  Thus,  as 
the  planets  are  separated  from  one  another  and  from  the  sun 
according  to  Bode's  law  of  proportionate  distances,  so  the 
members  of  a  group  of  chemical  elements  may  be  regarded  as 
separated  from  one  another  and  from  corresponding  members 
in  other  groups  in  accordance  with  this  atomic  law  of  octaves. 
And  so,  as  the  asteroids  between  Mars  and  Jupiter  were  dis- 
covered from  Bode's  law,  new  chemical  elements  have  been 
discovered  by  this  periodic  law  of  chemistry,  as  they  were 
previously  predicted  to  exist  with  almost  definite  properties. 
Thus,  in  1 87 1,  Mendeleeif  forecast  the  existence  of  three  new 
elements,  which  were  later  actually  found,  with  properties  very 
closely  corresponding  to  the  prediction;  namely.  Gallium, 
Scandium  and  Germanium.  And  as  yet  undiscovered  ele- 
ments have  also  been  predicted  and  theoretically  described  ac- 
cording to  this  law;  and  these  may  in  time  also  be  discovered. 
Thus,  in  Mendeleeff's  table  of  chemical  elements  according  to 
the  "Periodic  Law,"  1903,  he  placed  two  as  yet  undiscovered 
elements  which  he  called  x  and  y.  The  element  y  is  now  be- 
lieved to  be  an  element  found  in  the  envelope  of  the  sun,  with 
an  atomic  weight  of  .4,  and  called  coronium.  And  for  the 
supposed  element  x  the  name  Newtonium  has  been  suggested. 
To  this  element  MendeleefiE  gave  the  atomic  weight  of  .000001, 
or  about  600  times  lighter  even  than  the  electron,  the  sub- 
atomic corpuscle,  spoken  of  in  the  preceding  chapter.  It  is 
needless  to  say  that  the  natural  inference  would  be  that  this 
element  might  be  the  subtle  ether,  as  the  ultimate  basis  of  all 
matter.  If  this  element  were  discovered  and  could  be 
proved  to  be  identical  with  the  ether,  it  would  be  the  key 
to  the  solution  of  one  of  the  hitherto  greatest  mysteries  of  na- 
ture. So,  likewise,  Johnstone  Stoney  also  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  there  are  three  elements  lighter  than  hydrogen. 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  249 

It  might  also  be  said  that  with  this  law  of  chemical  ele- 
ments correspond  the  numbers  and  arrangements  of  electrons 
in  the  atoms  of  the  various  kinds.  Or,  in  other  words,  if  we 
may  anticipate,  the  numbers  and  arrangements  of  these  sub- 
atomic electrons,  in  conjunction  with  their  positive  nuclei, 
cause  or  determine  what  is  known  as  the  "Periodic  Law."  It 
is  also  to  these  ultimate  particles  and  their  arrangements  that 
chemical  valency  is  due.  Thus,  in  the  discovery  of  this  great 
law  of  chemical  elements  we  are  tracing  another  foot-print 
of  the  Creator  after  Him  in  His  creation.  Indeed,  in  the 
"Periodic  Law"  chemistry  has  found  the  key  to  the  solution  of 
many  mysteries  of  nature,  such  as  the  possible  further  sub- 
divisions of  matter,  and  perhaps  some  of  the  methods  and  pur- 
poses of  the  Creator. 

As  above  noted,  according  to  the  "Periodic  Law"  there  are 
recurring  points  marking  certain  properties  for  every  eighth 
element  in  the  ascending  series.  And  in  every  octave  the 
stability  of  the  atoms  apparently  decreases  with  the  relative 
increase  in  atomic  weights.  Moreover,  the  atomic  groups 
themselves,  considered  as  units,  appear  to  be  more  and  more 
unstable  as  to  their  forms,  as  we  ascend  the  scale  of  atomic 
weights.  The  highest  and  most  unstable  in  the  scale  of  a 
chemical  family,  is  followed  by  the  lowest  and  most  stable  of 
the  family  above  it.  And  thus,  as  the  scale  is  ascended,  we 
reach  the  last  chemical  family,  beyond  which  there  is  no 
other  known  family.  The  highest  atomic  instability  is  here 
reached,  beyond  which  instability  would  apparently  have  to 
be  so  great  that  no  other  higher  kind  of  atom  could  exist 
separately.  This  has  led  some  men  to  conclude  that  the  order 
of  creation,  or  of  supposed  evolution,  of  the  material  elements 
from  some  original  "protyle,"  or  cosmic  ether,  began  with  the 
elements  of  lowest  atomic  weight  and  proceeded  up  the  atomic 
scale.  The  disintegration,  as  indeed  radioactivity  evidently 
suggests,  would  then  normally  proceed  from  those  of  highest 
to  those  of  lowest  atomic  weights. 

All  these  facts,  instead  of  making  against  design,  leave  no 
room  for  any  other  explanation  than  that  they  are  the  un- 
mistakable work  of  an  intelligent  designing  Personality.  Blind 
must  be  he  who  does  not  see  design  and  purpose  in  such 
marvelous  arrangements  for  order  in  nature! 


250  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

3       EVERYTHING   APPARENTLY    IN    CEASELESS   MOTION    ACCORD- 
ING TO   FIXED  LAWS. 

Let  US  now  consider  another  wonderful  arrangement  of 
these  molecules  and  atoms.  All  are  In  ceaseless  motions.  In- 
deed, not  only  atoms  and  molecules,  but  everything  above,  as 
w^ll  as  everything  below  them,  is  In  motion.  And  cessation  of 
motion  would  mean  stagnation  and  death,  and,  as  we  have 
seen,  In  all  probability^  utter  annihilation. 

That  everything  is  In  motion  Is  the  general  verdict  of  science, 
and  was  well  expressed  in  the  following  words  by  W.  R. 
Grove:  "Of  absolute  rest  nature  gives  us  no  evidence;  all 
matter,  as  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  is  ever  In  movement,  not 
merely  in  masses  as  with  the  planetary  spheres,  but  also  molec- 
ularly,  or  throughout  its  most  intimate  structure;  thus  every 
alternation  of  temperature  produces  a  molecular  change 
throughout  the  whole  substance  heated  or  cooled;  slow  chemi- 
cal or  electrical  actions,  actions  of  light  or  Invisible  radiant 
forces  are  always  at  play,  so  that  as  a  fact  we  cannot  predi- 
cate of  any  portion  of  matter  it  is  absolutely  at  rest"  (The 
Correlation  and  Conservation  of  Forces ^  1868,  pp.  26-27). 
Thus,  "with  larger,  other  eyes  than  ours,"  we  could  see  all 
things  In  ceaseless  motion  or  vibration. 

All  atoms  are  thus  apparently  in  ceaseless  motions  or  revolu- 
tions, one  around  the  other.  The  elementary  hydrogen  mole- 
cule with  its  two  atoms  is  like  a  double  star  of  the  infinitesi- 
mal world,  one  revolving  around  the  other.  And  what  won- 
derful sj^stems  of  revolving  atoms  are  the  more  complex 
molecules  of  chemical  compounds,  all  probably  revolving  around 
their  common  centre  of  gravity!  Try  to  conceive  of  the  won- 
derfully intricate  and  complex  atomic  rotations  and  revolu- 
tions within  a  molecule  of  the  compound  quinine  with  its  20 
atoms  of  carbon,  24  of  hydrogen,  2  of  nitrogen,  2  of  oxygen! 
And  these  molecules,  composed  of  rotating  and  revolving  atoms, 
are  themselves  likewise  in  ceaseless  motions,  at  enormous  veloci- 
ties and  developing  great  quantities  of  energy . 

It  should  be  almost  needless  to  say  that  in  these  marvelous 
provisions  for  the  orderly  operations  of  nature,  not  chance, 
but  purpose  is  everywhere  manifest.  The  hand  of  the  Infinite 
Operator  is  so  clearly  In  all  these  details  that  we  can  almost 
sec   Him  at   His  mysteriously  wonderful  work. 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  251 

Another  remarkable  thing  about  the  molecules  is  that  though 
molecules  of  different  elements  are  very  different  in  size  and 
weight,  yet  equal  volumes  or  quantities  of  all  gases,  at  the  same 
temperature  and  pressure,  have  equal  numbers  of  them.  This 
law,  first  enunciated  by  Avogadro  (i 776-1 856),  has  been 
demonstrated  by  mathematico-scientific  methods  and  is  no 
longer  theory.  Moreover,  since  the  pressure  in  such  equal 
volumes  of  gases  is  the  same,  and  as  the  numbers  of  molecules 
are  equal,  it  must  follow  that  the  average  kinetic  energy  of 
the  molecules  in  the  different  gases  must  also  be  equal.  And, 
as  the  kinetic  energy  of  any  moving  body  is  equal  to  -Jmv^, 
we  can  readily  determine  the  relative  velocities  of  moving 
molecules  of  different  gases.  Thus,  for  the  moving  molecules 
(or  atoms)  of  oxygen  and  hydrogen,  the  formula  would  be  as 
follows:  JMV2(0):=4mv2(i/).  But  M=i6m.  There- 
fore, substituting  i6m  for  M  and  dividing  by  Jm,  i6V^=v^; 
or,  v=4V.  That  is,  the  velocity  of  the  hydrogen  molecule 
would  be  four  times  that  of  the  oxygen  molecule.  It  has  been 
determined  that  the  average  velocity  of  the  molecule  of  oxy- 
gen, under  standard  conditions,  is  about  1500  feet  per  second, 
and  that  of  the  molecule  of  hydrogen  is  therefore  about  6000 
feet  a  second.  What  energy  is  thus  locked  up  in  even  a  cubic 
inch  of  oxygen  gas,  with  its  inconceivable  number  of  mole- 
cules, averaging  over  a  mile  a  second!  But  we  must  not 
anticipate. 

This  law  furnished  the  basis  for  the  determination  of  the 
atomic  weights  of  different  elements,  and  thus  led  to  the  dis- 
covery of  the  "Periodic  Law,"  spoken  of  above. 

It  has  thus  been  found  that  a  cubic  inch  of  any  gas,  at 
760  mm.  barometric  pressure  and  0°  C,  would  contain  approxi- 
mately 10^^  molecules.  Some,  however,  by  slightly  different 
methods,  make  this  somewhat  less.  It  has  also  been  demon- 
strated that  the  velocity,  and  therefore  the  kinetic  energy, 
and  for  the  same  volume  the  pressure,  or  for  the  same 
pressure  the  volume,  increases  with  the  rise  in  tempera- 
ture, as  also  that  they  decrease  with  the  lowering  of 
temperature.  Thus,  at  approximately  273°  C,  the  molecu- 
lar velocity,  kinetic  energy  and  pressure  of  the  gas  (for 
same  volume  as  at  0°  C.)  would  be  doubled;  at  546°  C. 
they  would  be  trebled,  etc.  And,  at  —273°  C.  there  would  be 
no  pressure.     And  the  molecules  of  the  gas  would  therefore 


252  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

be  motionless  and  have  no  kinetic  energy.  And,  as  heat  is 
due  to  the  motions  or  vibrations  of  the  molecules,  or,  as  some 
hold,  to  their  arrested  motions,  this  state  of  —273°  C.  must  be 
regarded  as  that  of  absolute  stagnation  and  cold,  or  of  absolute 
zero  of  temperature.  Indeed,  theoretically  at  least,  at  —273°  C. 
the  very  volume  of  the  gas  would  entirely  disappear.  This  is 
also  in  line  v^ith  our  contention,  elsewhere  stated,  especially 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  cessation  of  motion  would  un- 
doubtedly mean  annihilation.  And  this  would  necessarily  have 
to  be  the  case  if  the  ultimate  so-called  particles  of  matter  were 
nothing  but  energy.  And,  conversely,  toward  the  ultimate 
identity  of  matter  and  energy  this  theory  of  the  absolute  zero 
of  temperature,  with  no  vibration  and  no  volume,  singularly 
points. 

Surely,  design  in  these  and  many  other  similar  laws  of 
inorganic  nature! 

4       ATOMS       THEMSELVES       LIKE       PURPOSEFUL       MINIATURE 
STELLAR  SYSTEMS   OF   THE    INFINITESIMAL   UNIVERSE 

Let  us  now  consider  further  the  wonderful  constitution  of 
the  atom  itself.  It  is  not,  as  until  within  recent  years  be- 
lieved, the  ultimate  particle  that  cannot  be  cut,  as  the  word 
means.  But  it  is  really  a  miniature  universe  in  itself.  The 
atom  contains  thousands  of  electrons  or  negative  particles  in 
ceaseless  revolutions  within  a  positive  field  of  electrification, 
which  is  also  believed  to  be  made  up  of  granular  particles 
like  the  electrons,  or  to  consist  of  one  larger  particle.  Ac- 
cording to  Rutherford's  latest  views,  the  positive  nucleus  sur- 
rounded by  negative  electrons  is  probably  very  small  as  com- 
pared with  the  atom  itself.  This  would  seem  to  point  to  a 
single  nucleus,  or  to  a  small  number  close  together.  Ac- 
cordingly to  a  theory  of  G.  N.  Wilson  {Philosophic  Maga- 
zine, Feb.,  1916),  the  atom  "consists  of  a  ring  of  electrons 
(repelling  one  another  according  to  the  ordinary  inverse 
square  law)  rotating,  in  the  normal  configuration  of  the  atom, 
in  a  symmetrical  manner  round  a  small  positive  charge." 

A  curious  modification  of  the  theory  of  the  electronic  struc- 
ture of  the  atom  is  given  by  A.  L.  Parson,  in  Smithsonian 
Miscellaneous  Collections,  Nov.  29,  1915.  According  to  this 
view,    the   atom   consists   of   a   positive   part   and    ring-shaped 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  253 

negative  charges  called  magnetons,  revolving  around  the  nu- 
cleus with  peripheral  velocity  of  the  order  of  light  at  radii 
less  than  that  of  the  atom.  According  to  this  view  these 
magnetons  are  supposed  to  be  ring-shaped  instead  of  spherical 
or  concentrated  at  a  point,  as  they  are  generally  regarded 
under  the  name  electrons. 

The  electron  is  thus  generally  regarded  as  one  of  the  cease- 
lessly  revolving  particles   which   in   or   around,    and   together 
with,  a  field  of  uniform  positive  electrification,  or  a  positive 
nucleus,  or  nuclei,  constitute  an  atom.     It  has,  therefore,  by 
some  been  regarded  as  the  definitely  determined  basic  element 
of  all  matter,  exclusive  of  the  ether.     It  would  appear,  how- 
ever, that,  as  we  generally  use  the  term  matter,  the  so-called 
uniform    field    of    positive    electrification    has    materiality    no 
less  than   the  negative  particle  or   electron  which   apparently 
revolves   around   it,   if   this  be   considered   to   be  material — a 
fact  by  many,  however,  denied.    The  weight  of  all  the  electrons 
of  the  atom  is  apparently,  according  to  some  investigations,  not 
the  same   as,   and   indeed  less  than   that  of,   the   atom  itself. 
Therefore,   this  so-called  field  of  positive  electrification  must 
cause   this   difference   of   weight.     And,    though    this   positive 
particle   has   not  yet  been   determined   to   be  granular   in   its 
nature,  it  is  undoubtedly  so,  the  two  sets  of  particles  thus  con- 
stituting  the   intrinsic   atomic   energy   by   their   contrasted   or 
opposing  revolutions. 

There  is  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  size  and  num- 
ber of  the  electrons.  According  to  Sir  Oliver  Lodge's  calcu- 
lations, there  are  about  30,000  of  them  in  an  atom  of  oxygen 
(about  1875  in  an  atom  of  hydrogen)  ;  and  these  are  of  course 
widely  separated.  According  to  Arrhenius  ( Theories  of  Chem- 
istry, p.  92),  an  electron  has  a  diameter  of  0.961X10"^^  cm. 
Or,  it  would  take  over  10  trillion  of  them  side  by  side  to 
measure  a  cm.,  and  over  25  trillion  to  measure  an  inch.  It 
would,  according  to  this  calculation,  require  about  200,000 
electrons  side  by  side  for  the  diameter  of  an  ordinary  oxygen 
atom  (taking  atom  to  be  ^^^^^l^^^^^  inch),  or  over  4,000,- 
000,000,000,000  to  fill  up  an  atom,  showing  that  the  27,000 
or  30,000  electrons  in  the  oxygen  atom,  or  the  1,700  or  more 
in  the  hydrogen  atom,  are  indeed  relatively  widely  separated. 


254  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

Now,  try  to  conceive  of  the  number  of  electrons  necessary 
to  become  visible  under  the  most  powerful  microscope.  It 
would  approximately  require  120,000,000  side  by  side,  or  900 
sextillion  of  them  in  spherical  mass.  And  it  would  require 
even  about  1,500,000  side  by  side,  or  approximately  2X10^*  in 
spherical  mass,  to  become  visible  under  the  ultramicroscope. 
What  inconceivable  numbers  of  these  electrons,  not  to  speak  of 
even  possibly  smaller  ether  particles  already  referred  to,  would 
be  in  a  drop  of  water  or  a  grain  of  sand!  What  vastly 
greater  number  in  this  little  earth,  the  sun,  and  lastly  the  ag- 
gregate universe!  And  yet,  every  one  of  them  is  apparently 
as  perfect  as  if  it  were  the  only  one  in  existence.  Surely  every 
ultimate  particle,  no  less  than  the  aggregate  whole,  must  have 
had  an  omnipotent  Creator!  And  every  particle  must  have 
received  the  same  attention,  if  we  might  so  speak,  as  the  cosmic 
whole,  or  as  if  it  were  the  only  creature.  And  just  so  surely 
must  that  omniscient  Creator  know  and  sustain  and  guide  the 
motions  of  every  last  one  of  them.  As  no  hair  can  fall  from 
man's  head  without  His  knowledge,  so  no  electron  exists  and 
moves  without  His  power  and  knowledge. 

Thus,  according  to  the  slightly  different  views,  the  atom 
consists  of  many  hundreds  of  electrons  or  negative  particles, 
together  with  the  still  undiscovered  particles  of  the  positive 
nucleus.  The  atom  of  hydrogen  has  about  1800  or  less  com- 
paratively widely  separated  electrons,  themselves  in  ceaseless 
revolutions  with  a  normal  velocity  of  about  18,000  miles  a 
second.  And  it  is  calculated  that  even  the  very  mass  or  size 
of  the  atom  itself  depends  upon  these  internal  electronic  veloci- 
ties, and  that  for  even  the  same  atom  it  varies  with  these 
velocities  and  with  temperatures,  etc.  What  wonderful  pro- 
vision for  the  constitution  of  matter  in  this  arrangement  of 
even  its  ultimate  elements!  Surely,  wonder  is  added  to  won- 
der! The  design  for  the  very  purposes  thus  subserved  is  so 
manifest  that  no  one  should  have  the  slightest  doubts  that  an 
almighty  hand  produced  every  ultimate  particle  and  gave  it  its 
properties  and  revolutions,  for  the  wonderful  complexities  of 
the  unspeakably  marvelous  universe.     To  deny  this  is  madness. 

Moreover,  these  electrons  or  negative  particles  in  motion, 
handing  on  energy  in  a  wire,  etc.,  from  one  atom  to  another, 
constitute  what  we  call  electricity.    This  has  given  rise  to  what 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  255 

is  called  the  electrical  theory  of  matter,  discussed  in  our  last 
chapter;  namely,  that  what  is  called  matter  is  in  its  last 
analysis  nothing  but  energy,  whose  accumulated  manifestations, 
or  resisting  properties,  we  call  matter.  And,  of  course,  sup- 
posing the  electron  to  be  the  ultimate  unit,  then  one  of  two 
things  is  apparently  certain:  either  that  electricity  is  in  reality 
only  material  electrons  in  motion  and  is  therefore  a  manifesta- 
tion of  matter,  or  that  matter  is  ultimately  composed  of  elec- 
tricity, made  up  of  electrical  charges,  electrons  or  energy,  within 
a  possible  field  of  positive  electrification,  or  revolving  around 
a  positive  integral  or  granular  nucleus.  But,  because  of  resist- 
ance, reflection  and  polarization  of  these  electrons,  as  also  be- 
cause of  weight,  some  still  prefer  to  regard  them  as  probably 
material  in  nature.  Indeed,  their  energy,  known  as  the  in- 
trinsic energy  of  the  atom,  can  even  be  calculated,  according  to 
the  ordinary  formula,  -Jmv^.  But,  then,  even  their  mass  has 
been  calculated  to  vary  with  velocity. 

Another  remarkable  thing  about  the  electrons  is  the  fact 
that,  while  atoms  of  the  same  element  are  alike  in  size,  shape, 
weight  and  other  properties,  but  different  for  different  ele- 
ments, the  electrons,  at  least  under  similar  circumstances,  are 
apparently  the  same  as  to  their  properties,  or  identical  for  all 
the  elements.  This,  surely,  should  suggest  the  ultimate  identity 
of  all  the  elements  in  the  constitution  of  all  matter,  whether 
the  electron  be  regarded  as  material  or  purely  electrical.  Dif- 
ferent elements  of  matter  would,  therefore,  differ  only  in  hav- 
ing different  numbers  of  electrons  with  different  velocities 
around  or  within  their  fields  of  positive  electrification,  or 
around  their  positive  nuclei.  And  if  the  positive  field  of 
electrification  consists  of  granular  particles,  as  seems  necessary 
for  the  integrity  and  stability  of  the  atom,  then  these  particles, 
like  the  electrons,  must  also  no  doubt  be  the  same  for  all  the 
so-called  chemical  elements.  Therefore,  all  matter,  in  its 
ultimate  analysis,  would  be  composed  of  the  same  electrons  and 
positive  particles,  differing  only  in  their  numbers,  arrange- 
ments and  revolutions.  And  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that 
these  negative  and  positive  particles  might  then  be  composed  cf 
only  different  numbers  and  arrangements  or  revolutions  of 
still  smaller  constitutents  (etherons?),  whose  very  difference 
in  arrangements  or  revolutions,  in  a  way  not  known  to  us,  may 
cause   their  so-called   respective  positive   and   negative   electri- 


256  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

iicatlon. 

If  men  have  dreamed  philosophic  dreams  about  a  possible 
monatomic  nature  of  matter,  their  dreams  are  now  probably 
matched  by  facts  In  what  might  be  called  the  monelectronic  or 
even  perhaps  monetheronic  constitution  of  matter.  And  If  it 
were  possible  artificially  to  break  up  substances  Into  their  elec- 
trons and  positive  particles,  and  to  unite  these  again  at  will, 
according  to  their  laws  of  composition  for  any  other  substance, 
then  the  long  dreamed  of  transmutation  of  metals  or  other 
elements  would  become  possible.  Surely,  the  solution  of  the 
problem  of  such  dissolution  and  reunion  of  electrons  and  posi- 
tive particles  would  constitute  the  real  philosopher's  stone. 
But  this  problem  is  probably  beyond  solution,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  law  of  atomic  structure  and  atomic  combinations. 
As  the  so-called  transmutation  of  elements  in  the  natural  pro- 
cess of  radioactivity  is  apparently  from  heavier  to  lighter  ele- 
ments, this  would  indicate  the  probable  impossibility  of  trans- 
mutation of  silver  into  gold,  etc.,  or  of  a  lighter  into  a  heavier, 
even  though  the  apparently  Impossible  process  of  some  artifi- 
cial transmutation  should  at  some  time  be  discovered. 

As  already  noted,  the  electrons  are  In  ceaseless  motions. 
Nor  are  these  motions  simply  at  random  vibrations.  On  the 
contrary,  they  are  held  to  be  of  the  nature  of  planetary  revo- 
lutions, according  to  certain  fixed  laws.  Thus,  every  atom 
Is  really  a  miniature  universe  of  ceaselessly  revolving  electrons 
at  relatively  great  distances  apart.  If  it  were  magnified  so 
that  the  atom's  size  would  expand  to  the  size  of  a  vast  star- 
cluster,  it  would  present  a  truly  wonderful  sight. 

Let  us  now  imagine  an  atom  of  oxygen  to  be  magnified 
4x10^^  times  Its  actual  size  in  diameter.  This  atom  would 
then  be  over  6,000,000,000  miles  in  diameter.  And  its  con- 
stituent electrons  would  be  over  30,000  miles  in  diameter,  or 
about  four  times  that  of  our  earth.  And  within  this  magni- 
fied atomic  sphere  there  would  be  approximately  27,000  of 
these  electronic  stars  (or  planets)  of  over  30,000  miles  each 
in  diameter,  all  revolving  in  mighty  revolutions  within  vast 
orbits,  and  probably  around  their  common  centre  of  gravity. 
Moreover,  if  these  electronic  bodies  were  uniformly  distrib- 
uted, they  would  be  approximately  150,000,000  miles  apart, 
or  about  one  and  two-thirds  our  distance  from  the  sun.    This 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  257 

enables  us  to  get  some  idea  of  the  truly  wonderful  structure 
of  even  an  infinitesimal  atom,  according  to  latest  science. 

The  above  w^ould,  however,  be  only  one  oxygen  molecule. 
If  now  we  should  conceive  of  a  spherical  volume  of  oxygen 
gas  an  inch  in  diameter  to  be  equally  magnified,  it  would  as- 
sume a  size  in  diameter  of  approximately  ten  times  that  of 
the  known  universe,  or  somewhat  over  50,0(X)  light  years  in 
radius.  Its  atoms  would  constitute  an  inconceivable  number 
of  widely  separated  electronic  star-  or  planet-systems,  all  in 
wondrous  rotations,  as  well  as  revolutions  around  one  an- 
other. And  each  of  these  atomic  systems  w^ould  be  made  up 
of  27,000  individually  revolving  and  rotating  electronic  stars 
or  planets.  Thus  a  bit  of  simple  oxygen  gas  only  a  tenth 
of  an  inch  in  diameter  might  be  called  a  whole  universe  in 
miniature! 

Or,  if  the  known  universe  were  reduced  in  its  diameter 
(approximately  10,000  light  years)  so  as  to  be  only  ^^  ^2 
of  its  actual  size,  it  would  be  only  one  tenth  of  an  inch 
in  diameter.  Upon  this  basis  our  sun  would  be  so  small  that 
its  diameter  would  be  only  about  25  to  30  times  that  of  an 
electron.  Or  it  would  take  nearly  10,000  such  suns  side  by 
side  to  measure  as  much  as  the  diameter  of  an  oxygen  atom. 
That  is,  it  would  require  i  ,000,000,000,000  such  reduced  suns 
to  measure  a  linear  inch,  or  approximately  5,000,000  side 
by  side  to  be  seen  with  the  largest  compound  microscope,  if  it 
were  possible  to  see  such  a  line. 

The  above  had  reference  only,  however,  to  a  simple  atom 
or  to  oxygen  gas.  But  the  molecule  would  be  still  more  com- 
plex and  wonderful.  The  little  electronic  system  of  each 
atom  would  revolve  around  a  similar  system  or  systems.  And, 
complex  as  even  an  elementary  molecule  would  be,  how  vastly 
more  complex  and  wonderful  would  be  a  molecule  of  the  more 
complex  compounds,  such  as,  for  example,  that  of  strichnia 
(C21H22N2O2),  with  its  union  of  47  atoms!  Under  suffi- 
cient magnification,  it  would  appear  like  a  complex  universe 
composed  of  many  electronic  stellar  systems.  If  every  carbon 
atom  (atomic  weight  approximately  12)  consists  of  about 
20,000  electrons,  every  hydrogen  atom   (atomic  weight  i)   of 


258  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

about  17CX)  electrons,  every  nitrogen  atom  (atomic  weight 
approximately  14)  of  about  23,000  electrons,  and  every  oxy- 
gen atom  (atomic  weight  approximately  16)  of  about  27,000 
electrons,  a  single  strichnia  molecule  would  contain  about 
557,400  electrons,  not  to  speak  of  the  positive  part  of  the 
atoms. 

Thus  in  the  carbon  part  of  every  molecule  of  strichnia  there 
would  be  21  lesser  electronic  systems  of  20,000  electronic  stars 
each,  every  one  of  them  in  wondrous  revolution  around  some 
centre  or  centres,  and  all  these  21  electronic  systems  in  sys- 
temic revolutions  around  one  another — a  total  system  of  420,- 
000  electronic  stars.  In  the  hydrogen  part  of  every  molecule 
of  strichnia  there  would  be  22  such  lesser  electronic  systems 
of  1700  revolving  electronic  stars  each,  and  all  of  these  22 
systems  in  constant  systemic  revolutions  around  one  another — 
a  total  system  of  37,400  electronic  stars.  In  the  niuogen 
part  of  each  molecule  of  strichnia  there  would  be  2  such 
lesser  electronic  systems  of  about  23,000  revolving^  electronic 
stars  each,  both  of  them  in  constant  systemic  revolution  around 
each  other — a  total  of  46,000  electronic  stars.  And  in  the 
oxygen  part  of  every  molecule  of  strichnia  there  would  be  2 
such  lesser  electronic  systems  of  27,000  revolving  electronic 
stars  each,  both  of  them  in  constant  systemic  revolution  around 
each  other — a  total  of  54,000  electronic  stars.  And  these 
four  inconceivably  complex  atomic  systems  of  systems  of  elec- 
tronic stars  would  be  revolving  around  one  another,  and  pre- 
sumably around  a  common  Qentre,  as  a  molecular  universe 
of  5575400  electronic  stars. 

But  even  this  molecular  universe  of  atomic  systems  of 
electronic  stars,  would  be  only  one  of  the  vast  number  of  such 
in  a  speck  so  small  as  to  be  barely  visible  to  the  human  eye, 
or  even  with  the  most  powerful  ordinary  compound  micro- 
scope. And  yet,  every  one  of  these  557>400  electrons  con- 
stituting a  single  strichnia  molecule  may  itself  constitute  a  still 
minuter  system  of  revolving  particles  of  ether,  the  elemental 
substance  of  the  material  universe,  thus  making  the  complexity 
of  revolutions  within  revolutions,  etc.--of  revolving  systems 
within  or  beyond  revolving  systems — still  further  almost  in- 
finitely more  complex.  Moreover,  it  is  the  electronic  revolu- 
tions that  set  the  ether  in  motion  for  the  production  of  light, 
heat,  electricity,  etc.,  of  which  we  shall  speak  later. 


Evidence  from  Design  in  'Nature  259 

From  the  above  it  Is  readily  seen  that  the  latest  scientific 
theories,  instead  of  making  against  the  necessity  of  an  infinite 
Intelligence  and  Power  back  of  the  universe  as  its  ultimate 
Cause,  w^ould  rather,  if  that  were  possible,  make  such  necessity 
all  the  more  imperatively  necessary.  According  to  these  sci- 
entific theories,  nature  becomes  all  the  more  indescribably 
wonderful,  and  a  supreme  creative  Will  in  the  structure  and 
operation  of  its  every  ultimate  detail  all  the  more  astonishingly 
manifest.  The  intelligence,  will  and  power  of  what  must  be 
an  infinite  spiritual  Personality,  are  too  evident  even  to  permit 
of  honest  argument  to  the  contrary,  in  what  we  can  not  bet- 
ter describe  than  as  design  throughout  the  ultimate  depths  of 
what  constitutes  the  infinitesimal  universe.  Thus,  from  the 
ultimately  infinitesimal  to  the  ultimate  whole,  design  and 
purpose  throughout  nature,  to  him  who  would  hold  commu- 
nion with  her,  speak  in  silent  eloquence  of  nature's  infinite, 
eternal  and  almighty  Creator  and  Sustainer,  God. 


5       THE   VAST    ENERGY   IN   THE    UNIVERSE   AN    UNMISTAKABLE 
EVIDENCE   OF   PURPOSE 

We  should  hardly  need  to  point  out  that  the  immeasurable 
energy  of  all  the  infinitesimal  particles  in  the  cosmic  universe 
and  of  all  the  stars  of  the  universal  whole,  is  for  the  very  pur- 
pose which  it  so  wonderfully  subserves,  and  that  it  is  therefore 
an  undeniable  evidence  of  design. 

Conceive  of  hydrogen  molecules  moving  upwards  of  a  mile 
per  second,  and  then  consider  the  millions  within  a  space 
barely  visible  in  the  most  powerful  microscope.  To  get  the 
combined  energy  multiply  one  half  the  mass  by  the  square  of 
the  velocity,  and  then  multiply  by  the  number  of  molecules. 
What  energy  is  thus  locked  up  in  even  a  cubic  inch  of  hydro- 
gen gas,  with  its  inconceivable  number  of  molecules  averaging 
in  velocity  over  a  mile  a  second ! 

Moreover,  the  energy  in  the  chemical  union  of  different  ele- 
ments is  almost  inconceivably  great.  Thus,  when  hydrogen 
and  oxygen  (1800  cubic  inches),  in  the  ratio  of  2  to  i,  are 
chemically  united  in  the  production  of  a  pound  of  water,  the 
energy  from  the  clashing  together,  at  a  final  velocity  of  about 
four   miles  per   second,    of   the   hydrogen   and   oxygen   atoms 


26o  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

and  from  the  consequent  revolutions  around  one  another, 
would,  it  is  claimed,  raise  32,462  pounds  of  water  from  0°  C. 
to  1°  C.  The  number  of  revolutions  of  the  atoms  of  hydro- 
gen and  oxj^gen  about  one  another  is  calculated  to  be  about 
three  trillions  per  second.  And,  as  the  heat  required  to  raise 
a  given  quantity  of  water  1°  C.  is  equivalent  to  the  raising  of 
that  quantity  of  water  1390  feet  against  gravity,  the  chemical 
production  of  a  pound  of  water  would  develop  energy  equiva- 
lent, if  properly  harnessed,  to  the  raising  of  32,462  pounds  of 
water  1390  feet,  or  one  pound  over  45,cmdo,ooo  feet,  against 
gravity.  Or,  it  would  raise  a  projectile  of  a  ton  nearly  25,000 
feet  or  almost  five  miles.  Similar  figures  were  arrived  at  by 
Tyndall.  See  also  LeBon  on  The  Problems  of  Heat,  in  his 
Evolution  of  Forces. 

So  the  quantity  of  electricity  required  to  separate  these  two 
elements  in  even  a  very  minute  quantity  of  water,  is  estimated 
to  be  equivalent  to  that  of  a  flash  of  lightning.  And  this 
power  is  spoken  of  as  latent  or  as  potential  energy.  What 
enormous  amount  of  energy  is  thus  latent  in  even  a  drop  of 
dew!  What  inconceivable  energy  in  all  the  rivers  and  oceans 
of  the  earth! 

And  what  is  true  of  the  kinetic  energy  both  in  the  produc- 
tion and  decomposition  of  water,  and  of  its  latent  energ^^  is 
also  true,  in  varying  proportions,  of  other  substances.  It  has 
thus  been  well  said  that  the  explosion  of  a  grain  of  gun- 
powder is  the  destruction  of  a  miniature  universe  and  the 
building  of  another. 


Thus  far  we  have  spoken  of  molecular  and  atomic  energy. 
Think,  then,  of  the  energy  of  the  electrons  of  all  the  atoms 
themselves,  or  of  what  is  spoken  of  as  the  intra-atomic,  or 
intrinsic,  energy. 

The  clashing  together  of  the  atoms  in  chemical  union  causes 
their  revolving  electrons  to  be  accelerated  in  their  velocities, 
adding  greatly  to  the  electronic  or  intrinsic  energy  of  the 
atoms  themselves.  The  number  of  electronic  revolutions 
around  the  centre  of  the  atom,  is  estimated  to  be  upwards  of  a 
quadrillion  per  second.  The  electronic  intrinsic  energy  of  the 
atom  is  inconceivably  greater  than  anything  conceived  of  be- 
fore its  discovery  associated  with  the  exploration  of  the  field 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  261 

of  radioactivity.  According  to  a  calculation  of  Sir  J.  J. 
Thomson,  this  energy  of  the  atoms  of  a  gram  of  hydrogen 
would  lift  10,000  tons  over  five  miles.  And,  generally  speak- 
ing, the  energy  of  other  elements  varies  vuith  the  numbers  of 
the  electrons,  or  with  the  atomic  weights.  Speaking  of  the 
enormous  electrical  potential,  LeBon  makes  the  following  at 
least  seemingly  exaggerated  statement:  "A  small  part  of  the 
96,000  coulombs  drawn  from  the  decomposition  of  9  grammes 
of  water  would  charge  with  electricity  to  a  potential  of  7000 
volts  a  globe  as  large  as  the  earth"  {The  Evolution  of  Forces, 
p.  166). 

So,  the  energy  of  radium  is  enormous,  about  several  million 
times  greater  than  that  of  any  known  chemical  reaction.  Con- 
ceive of  the  energy  produced  by  the  alpha  particles  (helium 
atoms),  moving  at  a  velocity  of  from  10,000  to  20,000  miles 
a  second!  Think  of  the  beta  particles  moving  about  90,000 
miles  a  second,  and  even  approaching  the  velocity  of  light, 
not  to  speak  of  the  energy  of  the  subtle  gamma  rays!  As 
LeBon  says,  the  energy  produced  by  a  sphere  as  large  as  a 
pin's  head  revolving  on  its  axis  with  the  speed  of  the  projec- 
tion of  a  cathode  particle  would  be  equivalent  to  the  kinetic 
energy  of  1 500  steam  engines  of  500  horse  power  each  for  a 
whole  hour  {Ibid.,  p.  167).  What  enormous  unused  energy 
there  is !  Of  what  unlimited  service  it  would  be  if  it  could  be 
harnessed!  According  to  Soddy,  even  a  gram  of  negative  hy- 
drogen ions,  if  free,  could  charge  the  world  to  a  potential  of 
a  million  volts. 


The  wonderful  provision  of  all  these  atomic  and  sub-atomic 
revolutions  is  awe-inspiring.  It  is  these  very  revolutions  that 
hold  so-called  ponderable  matter  in  existence.  The  destroying 
of  the  mere  equilibrium  of  these  complex  revolving  infinitesi- 
mal atomic  and  sub-atomic  structures  would  cause  them  to  dis- 
integrate, and  perchance  to  pass  into  the  elemental  ether,  or 
when  their  energy  would  be  spent,  into  non-existence.  We 
are  really  floating  through  space  upon  a  potential  explosive. 
It  is  held  from  exploding  only  by  a  proper  equilibrium  of 
forces,  or,  as  it  might  in  a  sense  be  expressed,  by  its  very  flight. 
And  at  any  moment  it  will  take  but  little  to  reduce  it  to  dust 
and  nothingness. 


262  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

Who  will  put  his  h'ttle  preconceptions  against  design  and 
purpose  in  all  this  wonderful  arrangement  of  energy  for  the 
conduct  of  the  universe,  from  electron  to  flashing  sun!  What 
unenlightened  human  reason  is  sufficient  to  fathom  the  un- 
fathomable wonder  of  adaptation  and  purposeful  provision  of 
creation,  and  think  its  Creator  out  of  existence!  Where  de- 
sign so  overwhelming  flashes  forth  in  every  consideration  of 
revolving  electron,  atom,  molecule,  world  and  star,  who  will 
weigh  his  little  self  against  an  infinite  designing  creative 
Deity!  Vain  man  to  think  thyself  so  great,  in  thy  great 
littleness,  before  the  wondrous  universe  and  its  infinitely  more 
wondrous   Creator,   God! 

If  the  revolutions  within  the  atom,  spoken  of,  represented 
electronic  jTars  and  if  an  electron  were  imagined  to  be  In- 
habited by  sentient  beings,  whose  average  lease  of  life  were 
one  hundred  of  these  electronic  years,  then  ten  trillion  genera- 
tions of  these  beings  would  succeed  one  another  or  pass  away 
within  a  second  of  our  time.  And,  to  them,  therefore,  a  sec- 
ond of  our  time  would  practically  be  an  eternity.  And  so,  for 
all  we  know,  our  years,  or  the  lease  of  human  life  of  three 
score  years  and  ten,  might  be  but  like  the  infinitesimal  frac- 
tion of  a  second  of  the  possible  higher  universe,  in  which  the 
earth  might  be  but  like  an  electron,  the  solar  system  like  an 
atom,  a  group  of  mutually  connected  star-systems  but  like  a 
molecule,  and  the  whole  knoivn  physical  universe  but  like  a 
speck  of  the  dust  that  floats  In  the  sunshine  and  helps  to 
make  up  the  merest  Infinitesimal  fraction  of  a  minute  local 
spot  upon  this  insignificant  *  world  within  the  universe  we 
know. 

At  any  rate,  who  can  stand  In  judgment  and  decide  against 
design  and  a  designing  Creator,  In  the  light  of  the  combined 
evidence  of  the  greater  whole!  It  amounts  to  a  presumption 
for  which  language  affords  no  expression,  for  human  Intellect 
proudly  to  stand  before  all  these  evidences  of  design  In  the 
inconceivable  energy  of  all  infinitesimal  particles  and  all 
worlds  and  stars,  etc.,  in  motion  according  to  wonderful  laws, 
and  say,  ''There  is  no  designing  Creator ;  there  is  no  God !" 
The  evidence  for  a  designing  Creator  with  this  additional  evi- 
dence thus  becomes  more  and  more  cumulative,  and  indeed 
altogether  unanswerable. 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  263 

6      DESIGN   IN   EVERY  VIBRATION   FROM   AN   OBJECT  PERCEIVED 
TO   THE   PERCEIVING    BEING 

Let  US  now  consider  the  wonderful  purposes  of  the  vibra- 
tions or  motions,  with  which  the  universe  is  seething  every- 
where. All  these  motions,  from  the  infinitesimal  gyrations  of 
an  electron  to  the  on-rushing,  in  probably  immeasurable  orbi- 
tal revolutions,  of  flaming  stars  or  suns,  are  in  accordance  with 
rigid  laws.  These  motions  lie  back  of  all  physical  phenomena, 
from  the  rainbow  of  promise  to  the  eclipse  of  darkness,  from 
the  leaf  that  trembles  in  the  breeze  to  the  Stella  nova  of  col- 
liding worlds,  from  pulsating  blood  to  flaming  suns.  It  is  this 
that  produces  all  light,  heat,  electricity,  magnetism,  color,  etc., 
etc. 

Thus,  the  particles  on  the  surface  of  the  sun — undoubtedly 
the  electrons — are  in  ceaseless  motions.  These  set  into  wave- 
motion  the  contiguous  ether,  and  by  ether  particles,  striking 
forward  against  ether  particles,  this  wave  motion  is  trans- 
mitted through  the  ether  of  space  until  the  waves  are  ob- 
structed or  Intercepted  by  a  body  like  our  earth.  And  then  the 
waves.  In  turn,  communicate  their  motions  to  the  retina  of  the 
eye,  etc.;  and,  through  the  proper  nerves,  the  phenomena  or 
sensations  of  light  and  heat  are  produced — or  we  might  almost 
say  reproduced — for  the  perceiving  being.  Thus,  nothing  ex- 
cept transmitted  motion  passes  from  sun  to  earth. 

For  the  passing  of  these  various  waves  from  sun  to  earth,  it 
requires  over  eight  minutes.  Or,  all  ether  waves  travel  186,- 
000  miles  a  second.  These  waves  are  of  different  lengths, 
ranging  from  long  waves  of  several  miles,  harnessed  in  wire- 
less telegraphy,  to  the  Infinltesimally  short  ultra-violet  waves. 
The  range  In  length  of  waves  for  the  light  spectrum  is  from 
,   '       of   an    inch   for   violet   light   to    — ^—    of   an   inch    for 

60,000  ^  34>ooo 

red  light.    Thus,  for  the  light  spectrum  there  are  from  34,000 
waves  (for  red)   to  60,000  waves  (for  violet)  per  inch. 

But  the  light  spectrum  covers  only  a  small  part  of  the  whole 
range  of  these  ether  waves.  The  ultra-violet  waves  are 
shorter  than  the  shortest  waves  of  the  light  spectrum,  and  the 
ultra-red,  or  heat  rays,  etc.,  are  longer  than  the  longest  waves 
of  the  visible  spectrum.     Among  the  ultra-violet  waves,  rang- 


264  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

me   from    ■    '    '    inch    to    — - —     inch,    are    the    rapid   vibra- 
=  60,000  250,000  ' 

tions  that  affect  the  photographic  plate,  as  also  do  slower 
waves  immediately  beyond  the  red  end  of  the  spectrum. 
Beyond  the  red  are  slower  infra-red  vibrations  that  mark  the 
bolometer  spectrum.  Then  comes  a  gap  where  waves  have  not 
yet  been  detected,  although  waves  are  no  doubt  there.  And, 
lastly,  after  a  considerable  gap  of  undetected  waves,  we  come 
to  the  Hertz  waves  of  the  electrical  spectrum.  And,  even 
beyond  both  ends  of  the  entire  known  spectrum  there  is  also 
undoubtedly  a  considerable  range  of  waves  that  have  not  yet 
been  discovered. 

Now,  as  the  various  w^ave-motions  are  transmitted  at  the 
rate  of  186,000  miles  per  second,  for  the  violet  waves  to  cover 
that  distance  in  a  second,  it  requires  about  700  trillions  of 
them.  Therefore,  there  are  about  700  trillions  of  violet  waves 
per  second,  the  number  of  the  other  waves  being  more  or  less 
as  we  descend  or  ascend  along  what  might  be  called  the  many- 
octaved  key-board  of  the  whole  range  of  weaves. 

And,  of  course,  all  these  ether  waves  are  set  into  motion  by 
rapidly  moving  particles — undoubtedly  the  revolving  electrons 
— in  the  surface  of  the  sun.  Moreover,  for  a  perfect  corre- 
spondence between  the  wave-motion  of  the  ether  and  the  mov- 
ing electrons  that  cause  them,  the  velocity  of  the  latter  should 
apparently  be  the  same  as  that  of  the  former.  Or,  the  num- 
bers of  the  vibrations  or  waves  of  the  ether  as  effects  would 
apparently  have  to  be  matched  by  the  numbers  of  the  vibra- 
tions of  the  electrons  as  their 'causes.  Thus,  the  numbers  of 
the  vibrations  of  these  electrons  must  apparently  range  to  cor- 
respond with  the  numbers  of  the  vibrations  or  waves  along 
the  whole  key-board  of  ether  vibrations  given  above. 

We  are  here  in  the  presence  of  a  wonder  of  nature,  and  of 
a  wonderful  provision  of  contacts  between  the  moving  elec- 
trons and  the  perceiving  eye,  or  of  transmissions  from  the  sun 
until  they  become  sensations  of  light  and  heat,  etc.,  in  the 
mind  of  man,  that  no  anti-theistic  bias  could  even  honestly 
dream  of  attributing  to  anything  else  than  matchless  intelli- 
gence on  the  part  of  an  unmistakable  Designer  or  Creator. 

Moreover,  upon  these  same  revolving  electrons  depend  all 
the  colors  that  make  objects  visible  and  beautify  the  world. 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  265 

What  wonderful  arrangement  for  the  beautifying  of  nature! 
What  marvelous  contrivance  for  bringing  external  nature 
to  the  apprehension  or  perception  of  intelligent  beings  within 
it! 

Who  can  think  of  light  and  heat  as  coming  to  us  by  Incon- 
ceivably small  waves  of  the  ether  at  almost  inconceivable  ve- 
locities from  distant  sun  or  star,  without  being  overwhelmed 
with  awe  and  thrilled  with  rapture  over  this  wonderful  pro- 
vision of  what  must  be  an  all-wise  and  all-powerful  Provider! 
Who  can  think  of  the  sunbeam  as  it  comes  dancing  down  to 
us  over  waves  of  the  ether,  without  almost  falling  down  in 
devout  and  grateful  adoration  before  their  wonderful  Author! 

Every  wave  Is,  moreover,  apparently  perfect,  as  if  it  were 
the  only  wave  transmitted ;  and  yet,  there  is  a  complexity  of 
waves  of  various  lengths  and  numbers  causing  the  phenomena 
of  various  colors,  heat,  and  chemical  action,  moving  simul- 
taneously in  the  same  wave-shaft  of  the  same  ether  medium, 
from  sun  to  earth,  without  interference.  This  certainly  is  in- 
describably wonderful.  What  wonderful  provision  in  the 
laws  of  refraction,  reflection  and  absorption  of  light  according 
to  various  electronic  vibrations,  for  the  wonderful  uses  of  light, 
etc.,  and  for  the  exquisite  variety  and  beauty  of  color!  All 
color  is  thus  due  to  what  we  call  the  power  of  objects  to 
absorb  some  waves  and  to  reflect  others. 

Indeed,  if  the  vibrations  of  the  ether  and  of  the  electrons 
of  objects  did  not  match  exactly  as  they  do,  all  the  world 
would  look  different.  And  If  the  electrons  of  the  sun  and  the 
particles  of  the  contiguous  ether,  In  their  respective  motions, 
did  not  match  exactly  as  they  do,  all  would  be  different,  leav- 
ing perchance  total  darkness  amid  chemical  action,  heat,  or 
what  not.  The  matching  of  the  Imponderable  ether  and  pon- 
derable matter  Is  such  as  to  leave  absolutely  no  room  for 
doubt  that  they  were  matched  or  arranged  together  exactly  for 
the  purpose  which  they  so  wonderfully  subserve,  by  an  intelli- 
gent creative  Will,  and  that  therefore  they  were  created. 

Who  can  see  colors  beautiful  and  indefinitely  varied, 
blended  and  matched  together,  either  In  the  rainbow  of  the  sky 
or  In  the  blossoms  at  his  feet,  without  thinking  of  their  Creator 
in  the  beauty  of  holiness!  Who  can  think  of  these  things  as 
the  results  of  infinitesimal  vibrations  of  one  kind  or  another, 
and  therefore  as,  in  a  sense,  various  manifestations  of  energy, 


266  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

without  thinking  of  the  unspeakably  wonderful  Being  Who 
made  all  these  things  and  arranged  their  operations  so 
marvelously ! 

IV    GENERAL  ADAPTATIONS  AND  PROVISIONS 
IN  NATURE  AS  EVIDENCES  OF  DESIGN 

Throughout  the  whole  realm  of  nature  we  are  in  the  pres- 
ence of  most  wonderful  provisions  and  arrangements  for  use 
and  beauty.  Surely,  in  a  sense,  everything  is  made  for  every- 
thing else.  The  atoms  are  clearly  made  for  one  another. 
Their  weights,  etc.,  are  exactly  adjusted  for  certain  definite 
combinations  with  other  atoms  for  the  building  up  of  the 
various  substances.  The  laws  of  molecular,  atomic  and  elec- 
tronic combinations  are  exactly  what  they  have  to  be  to  make 
those  combinations  possible.  The  electrons  of  which  the  atoms 
on  the  surface  of  the  sun  are  composed,  revolve  with  exactly 
the  velocities  necessary  for  producing  ether  waves  in  just  such 
a  way  as  to  transmit  light,  heat,  etc.,  for  observing  beings. 
The  ether  is  exactly  constituted  to  be  a  medium  for  these  phe- 
nomena. Ponderable  matter  and  ether  are  so  related  that  they 
fit  each  other  exactly  for  definite  reciprocal  action.  Motions 
of  ponderable  matter  are  communicated  to  the  contiguous 
ether  and  through  it  to  distant  matter  for  reproduction  there, 
or  for  the  setting  up  of  vibrations  of  other  kinds  or  orders  for 
definite  results.  Thus,  matter  affects  the  ether  and  the  ether 
in  turn  affects  matter.  And  so  intimate  is  their  bond  of  union 
and  cooperation  that  they  could  apparently  not  exist  apart  or 
alone.  They  must  have  been  made  for  each  other,  for  the 
production  of  the  wonderful  physical  operations  that  we  are 
first  beginning  partially  to  understand.  Matter  and  ether  are 
in  purpose  and  unifying  design  one^  as  in  substance  they  are  by 
many  believed  to  be  ultimately  one,  the  ether  the  foundation 
of  matter  and  matter  the  product  of  the  ether.  And  the  scien- 
tific world-process  is  more  and  more  believed  by  philosophic 
scientists  to  be  from  the  ether  to  matter  and  back  again  to 
the  ether.  And  ultimately  it  must  be  from  nothingness  to 
nothingness. 

The  eye  with  its  wonderful  mechanism  is  likewise  exactly 
fitted  to  receive  its  proper  impression  from  the  ether  waves. 
To  it  is  adapted  the  exact  nerve  system  to  communicate  its 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  267 

impressions  to  the  brain.  And  the  brain  is  just  the  organ  nec- 
essary as  an  instrument  for  the  invisible  mind  or  personality 
within,  to  receive  revelations,  or  to  understand.  And,  through- 
out the  whole  chain  of  sequences,  all  are  different  from  one 
another  in  the  succession,  and  yet  all  are  in  perfect  adjustment 
for  exactly  that  work  for  which  they  were  unmistakably  de- 
signed and  created. 

And,  to  this  would  have  to  be  added  the  still  more  wonder- 
ful provision  or  design  seen  in  organic  nature,  from  the  small- 
est unicellular  being  to  the  most  complex  animal.  For  each 
class  or  species  its  own  kind  of  cells;  for  even  each  organ  of 
an  individual  its  differently  designed  cells!  For  each  class  its 
own  nutrition-selection  and  provision  for  the  proper  colloca- 
tion of  nutrition!  And  for  each  its  own  characteristic  kind  of 
blood  corpuscles,  etc!  And  who  can  contemplate  the  marvel- 
ous provision  in  sex,  for  the  reproduction  of  species,  by  which 
they  are  endowed  with  the  power  of  procreation,  or  we  might 
almost  say  creation,  without  recognizing  the  unmistakable  de- 
sign and  work  of  a  designing  Creator! 

Some  men  speak  of  protoplasm  as  the  basis  of  organic  life, 
as  if  its  chief  element,  carbon,  were  a  creator.  But,  carbon 
cannot  produce  life.  And,  although  protoplasm's  principal 
elements,  carbon,  oxygen,  hydrogen  and  nitrogen,  were  united 
in  the  laboratory  with  ever  so  great  exactness,  the  chemist 
could  not  discover  nature's  secret  of  producing  protoplasm. 
And  yet,  even  the  very  perfect  proportions  unmistakably  indi- 
cate a  proportioning,  designing  Creator.  Surely,  design  every- 
where! a  different  design  for  every  different  species  of  both 
plants  and  animals!  Design  on  every  individual  of  every  kind! 
Design  in  every  organ  of  the  individual,  in  every  blood  cor- 
puscle, cell,  molecule,  atom  and  electron ! 

Thus,  in  the  universe  of  stars,  in  the  universe  of  the  infini- 
\  tesimal,  and  in  the  realm  that  may  be  said  to  lie  between,  there 
j  is  design  and  creative  intelligence  everywhere.  But,  if  the  de- 
1  sign  and  arrangement  of  material  substance  m  nature  are  so 
1  wonderful,  how  much  more  so  should  be  the  existence  of  the 
I  substances  themselves!  If  the  arrangement  requires  intelli- 
j  gence  and  power,  much  more  so  does  the  absolute  creation  of 
I  the  material,  with  which  that  arrangement  was  made  possible! 
I  Surely,  a  creative  Divinity  back  of  each  and  all  upon  which 
His  impress  is  so  gloriously  manifest!     Nor  is  there  anything 


268  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

in  all  worlds  that  would  not  have  occasion  to  raise  heavenward 

its  grateful  Pater  Noster, 

The  beauties  of  nature  are  such  as  unspeakably  to  delight 
the  eye;  the  harmonies  of  nature  are  such  as  inexpressibly  to 
delight  the  understanding.  Blind  indeed  must  be  he  who  does 
not  see  nature's  beauties;  and  deaf  must  be  he  who  does  not 
perceive  its  harmonies.  But,  blinder  still,  or  more  irrational, 
must  be  he  who  does  not  recognize  back  of  all  this  beauty  and 
harmony,  the  infinite  Beautifier,  Harmonizer,  Originator  and 
Designer — nature's  omnipotent,  omnific  and  omniscient  Lord. 
The  ancient  sages  were  not  so  far  from  the  truth  after  all 
when  they  spoke  of  a  supposed  music  of  the  spheres.  There 
are  harmonies  everywhere,  from  every  ultimate  sub-atomic 
particle  to  the  well-nigh  infinite  universe.  Nor  is  there  any 
discord  apparent  anywhere  throughout  the  whole,  except  that 
of  irreverent  and  rebellious  man.  These  facts  of  design  are  so 
evident  that  the  observing  student  of  nature,  whether  he  has 
any  religious  convictions  or  not,  should  unmistakably  recognize 
them.  And  this  design  in  the  beauties  and  harmonies  of  na- 
ture must  necessarily  be  attributed  to  a  higher  Intelligence, 
as  Benjamin  Moore  is  moved  to  say,  "The  ordered  beauty 
of  the  world  of  Nature  suggests  an  infinite  intelligence  with 
powers  of  action  such  as  no  man  or  other  creature  possesses" 
(The  Origin  and  Nature  of  Life,  1912,  p.  23). 

Indeed,  design  in  all  things  is  so  manifest  as  to  need  no 
further  proof.  Law  and  order  are  so  universal  as  to  convince 
even  the  casual  observer  that  a  supreme  Law-Giver  is  some- 
where upon  His  imperial  throne.  And  the  fact  that  this  earth 
would  not  be  even  a  visible  speck  within  the  field  of  the 
mightiest  telescope  from  even  our  nearest  neighbor  among 
those  countless  stars  of  night,  makes  that  great  and  wonderful 
Beautifier,  Law-Giver,  Creator  and  Designer  all  the  greater 
and  more  wonderful.  This  fact,  too,  seeing  that  man  is  the 
object  of  His  love  in  the  incarnation  of  His  Son,  instead  of 
minimizing  man,  gives  him  the  exalted  place  of  His  Fatherly 
concern  and  providence.  And,  if  some  men  think  of  man, 
because  of  his  wonderful  being,  as  the  riddle  of  existence, 
what  should  not  be  thought  of  man's,  and  the  whole  universe's, 
infinitely  more  wonderful  creative  Deity!  If  the  wonder  of 
the  human  intellect  increases  with  every  new  discovery  of  the 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  269 

wonders  of  the  Creator's  handiwork,  how  much  more  should 
the  wonder  of  Him  increase  Who  created  them!  If  the  foot- 
prints of  the  Creator,  as  we  trace  them  after  Him  in  his  cre- 
ation, are  wonderful,  how  much  more  wonderful  must  He 
be  Who  left  them  there  for  man's  contemplation  and  delight! 

V  NOT  CHANCE,  BUT  LAW  REIGNS— THE 
MODUS  OPERANDI  OF  AN  INTELLIGENT 
PERSONALITY 

Men  speak  of  chance  as  though  they  meant  something;  but, 
even  with  their  own  meaning  of  the  term,  chance  could  not, 
during  all  the  aeons  of  time,  produce  a  single  organism,  or 
even  a  single  electron,  and  much  less  so  the  immeasurably  com- 
plex universe.  By  so-called  chance  or  accident  even  the  ar- 
rangement of  a  hundred  numbers  or  particles  twice  in  exactly 
the  same  way  would  be  practically  an  impossibility.  What, 
then,  shall  we  say  of  the  impossibility  of  a  repeating  in  the 
same  arrangement  of  the  indefinite  number  of  particles  in  two 
of  even  the  minutest  similar  microcosms?  Then,  how  about 
the  vast  number  of  the  same  kind,  or  the  countless  numbers 
of  kinds,  of  the  incomprehensibly  complex  universe?  No, 
the  universe  exists;  and  its  existence  could  not  even  be  con- 
ceived to  be  different  from  what  it  is  while  pervaded  with 
and  permeated  by  the  present  purposeful  universal  laws. 

Indeed,  what  we  call  chance  is  no  less  the  result  of  a  cause 
or  causes  operating  according  to  definite,  though  by  us  not 
understood  or  unsuspected,  law,  than  any  event  with  whose 
cause  or  causes  we  may  be  familiar.  And  of  this  fact  we 
should  expect  a  denial  least  of  all  from  men  of  science.  And, 
among  those  most  positively  convinced  of  this  fact  are  some  of 
the  greatest  leaders  of  scientific  thought.  Thus,  Henri  Poin- 
care  makes  the  following  emphatic  statement  about  the  uni- 
versality of  cause,  as  against  supposed  chance:  "Every  phe- 
nomenon, however  minute,  has  a  cause;  and  a  mind  infinitely 
powerful,  infinitely  well-informed  about  the  laws  of  nature, 
could  have  foreseen  it  from  the  beginning  of  the  centuries. 
If  such  a  mind  existed,  we  could  not  play  with  it  at  any 
game  of  chance;  we  should  always  lose.  In  fact  for  it  the 
word  chance  would  not  have  any  meaning,  or  rather  there 
would  be  no  chance.     It  is  because  of  our  weakness  and  our 


270  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

ignorance  that  the  word  has  a  meaning  for  us.  And,  even 
without  going  beyond  our  feeble  humanity,  what  is  chance  for 
the  ignorant  is  not  chance  for  the  scientist.  Chance  is  only 
the  measure  of  our  ignorance.  Fortuitous  phenomena  are,  by 
definition,  those  whose  laws  we  do  not  know"  (The  Founda- 
tions of  Science,  19 1 3,  p.  395). 

But,  why  turn  aside  even  to  refer  to  chance,  to  which  we 
have  also  referred  before,  in  deference  to  some  speculators  who 
would  rid  the  universe  of  its  God,  if  that  were  possible?  The 
very  acknowledged  presence  of  law  in  nature  should  forever 
settle  and  rule  out  of  court  what  these  men  call  chance.  It 
would  surely  be  absurd  to  say  that  a  giant  printing  press  came 
to  be  by  chance,  by  the  fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms  or  mole- 
cules, resulting  in  wheels,  etc.,  and  in  the  accidental  arrange- 
ment and  adjustment  of  these  into  one  mighty  mechanism,  and 
in  the  spontaneous  rotations  of  the  wheels  in  their  complex 
gearings,  performing  amazing  operations.  But  it  would  be 
indescribably  more  absurd  to  say  that  even  the  minutest  or- 
ganism thus  came  to  be,  and  even  yet  more  absurd  to  say  that 
the  higher  animals  with  their  wonderful  provisions  of  sex — 
even  in  different  individuals — for  propagation,  thus  came  to 
be.  And,  to  express  the  degree  of  absurdity  of  saying  that  the 
whole  unspeakably  complex  and  wonderful  universe  thus  came 
to  be,  we  search  in  vain  for  a  word. 

A  further  explanation  of  what  we  generally  call  law  is  nec- 
essary here  in  the  interest  of  clearness.  A  proper  understand- 
ing of  law  will  take  another  prop  away  from  under  those  who 
would  bolster  themselves  up  in  their  contention  for  the  eter- 
nity and  self-subsistence  of  the  universe,  and  therefore  against 
the  existence  of  a  supreme  Will  beyond  and  within  it — the 
existence  of  its  Creator  and  Sustainer,  God.  It  will  also  add 
to  the  cumulative  force  of  our  argument  in  further  demon- 
stration, even  apart  from  Scripture,  that  it  was  God-created 
and  continues  to  be  God-sustained. 

What  we  call  law  is  not  that  by  which  a  thing  exists  or 
even  by  which  it  operates;  but  it  is  the  expression  of  its  meth- 
ods of  existence  or  of  its  operation.  Law  is,  therefore,  not 
a  cause,  but  a  modus  operandi  or  a  condition  of  existence.  The 
laws  of  nature  are,  therefore,  conditions  of  its  existence  as  to 
time  and  space,  and  its  modes  of  operations.     To  say,  there- 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  27 1 

fore,  that  the  supposed  evolution  In  nature,  or  any  of  nature's 
isolated  events,  is  brought  about  by  law,  Is  as  absurd  as  to  say 
that  the  arrangement  of  the  proper  wheels,  etc.,  and  their  re- 
lations to  one  another,  of  a  great  printing  press,  are  the  cause 
of  its  existence  and  its  wonderful  operations.  The  printing 
press  exists,  because  it  was  made.  Its  wheels,  etc.,  being  so 
made  and  adapted  or  adjusted,  as  to  make  It  capable  of  exactly 
the  operations  for  which  it  was  intended.  Then  the  power  or 
energy  is  applied  or  superadded  from  an  external  source,  and 
Its  operations  are  exactly  in  accordance  with  the  design  of  the 
living  machinist,  who  designed  and  made  it  and  arranged  for 
the  application  of  the  necessary  energy. 

Even  upon  the  supposition  that  the  universe  was  created  at 
first  in  its  elemental  form  and  endowed  with  the  necessary  po- 
tentialities for  Its  development  to  the  last  link  in  its  immeas- 
urably long  chain,  It  would  be  no  less  throughout  totally  a 
God-designed  and  God-created  universe. 

Thus,  the  universe  exists  because  it  was  created,  not  be- 
cause it  came  by  a  fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms.  Its  parts 
are  so  made  and  adjusted  and  related  to  one  another  by,  or 
according  to,  superadded  laws,  and  the  great  whole  is  so  im- 
pregnated with  energy,  that  all  events  in  nature  are  brought 
about  exactly  in  accordance  with  the  design  of  the  mighty  liv- 
ing Designer,  Creator  and  Upholder  of  the  great  complex 
machinery  which  we  call  nature.  And,  we  emphasize  again, 
this  is  equally  true  whether  the  universe  be  regarded  as  having 
come  from  His  creative  hand  at  once  complete  and  perfect, 
like  Minerva  full-fledged  and  perfect  when  Vulcan  struck 
Jupiter  on  the  forehead,  or  whether  It  issued  forth  an  ap- 
parently incoherent  chaos  with  superadded  potentialities  to  de- 
velop it  Into  the  mighty  cosmos.  Wherever  the  Creator  has 
used  secondary  causes,  these  have  been  only  His  voluntarily 
created  and  chosen  tools.  And,  in  their  use,  design  is  just 
as  evident  as  in  any  immediate  act.  Nor  is  the  record  of 
Genesis  against  the  use  of  such  secondary  agencies  In  the 
creation  of  the  cosmic  universe.  Nay,  rather,  such  a  method 
of  operation  seems  to  be  implied  in  such  expressions  as  "Let 
the  earth  bring  forth  grass"  (Chap.  1:11-12);  "Let  the  waters 
bring  forth  abundantly  the  moving  creature"  (1:20-22): 
"Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the  living  creature"  ( i  '.24)  ;  as  also 


272  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

in  Genesis  1:28,  etc.  And  that  immediate  and  mediate  cre- 
ation both  figured  in  that  creative  week  seems  to  be  implied 
in  the  expression  that  God  rested  from  all  His  work  which 
He  had  '"created  and  made,"  literally  created — to  make.  And, 
taken  very  literally,  the  continued  making  might  be  considered 
as  implied. 

As  already  said,  all  things  are  bound  together  and  move 
together,  there  being  no  isolation  of  existence,  no  independ- 
ence of  motion.  The  Cause  of  all  alone  must  remain  un- 
moved, or  else  there  would  be  relativity.  And,  as  the  first 
and  only  true  Cause,  that  Cause  operates  and  is  present  in  all 
secondary  causes,  as  already  pointed  out,  though  He  must  also 
be  external  to  all  secondary  causes  and  therefore  above  nature. 
That  Cause  that  thus  transcends,  and  is  also  immanent  in, 
nature,  is  what  by  Revelation  man  has  learned  to  adore  as 
God.  There  is,  therefore,  even  a  physical  sense  in  which 
there  is  an  all-pervading  divine  omnipresence. 

All  the  operations  of  nature  are,  therefore,  in  accordance 
with  divinely  imposed  purposeful  laws.  And,  we  have  seen 
that  what  is  true  of  the  starry  universe  is  equally  true  in  the 
realm  of  the  infinitesimal.  Even  down  to  the  ultimate  indi- 
visible particle  of  matter,  all  combine  in  exact  proportions  by 
definite  laws,  in  the  formations  of  different  substances.  Mo- 
tions, weights,  sizes,  numbers,  all  are  in  perfect  balance  and 
adjustment.  Thus,  from  electron  or  atom  to  a  world,  from 
stars  to  the  great  starry  universe,  everything  exists  upon  an 
exact  mathematical  plan.  It  is,  one  mighty  building  that  must 
first  have  existed  as  a  plan  or  design  in  the  mind  of  its  De- 
signer, God. 

Nor  does  the  carrying  out  of  such  design  through  secondary 
causes  in  the  least  detract  from  the  power  and  glory  of  the 
Designer,  as  such  would  only  be  the  methods  of  His  opera- 
tions. His  direct  and,  therefore,  absolute  power  stands  back 
of  the  initial  creation  of  matter  and  energy,  or,  matter  or  en- 
ergy, and  His  operation  through  secondary  causes  is  no  less 
from  and  by  His  power.  And  the  so-called  laws  are  only 
the  directed  methods  of  His  workings  through  these  secondary 
causes.  He  is,  therefore,  not  Himself  bound  by  these  laws, 
but  is  above  them  as  their  Author.  Moreover,  whenever  He 
so  chooses.  He  can  set  aside  the  operation  of  such  laws,  or 
operate  by  other  and  higher  laws,  or  directly,  if  we  choose  so 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  273 

to  regard  it.  Even  man  thus  acts  In  apparent  contravention  of 
the  law  of  gravitation,  when,  in  accordance  with  another  law, 
by  will-directed  muscular  energy,  he  lifts  a  stone  or  performs 
any  other  act.  This  conclusion  is  not,  as  some  men  would 
have  people  believe,  simply  the  supposedly  biased  view  of  theo- 
logians and  the  Church.  It  is  also  the  conviction  of  many 
of  the  greatest  students  of  nature,  such  as  Mivart,  Wallace, 
Fiske,  Lodge  and  G.  Frederick  Wright. 

Thus,  the  physical  universe  must  not  necessarily  be  regarded 
as  rigidly  a  mechanism,  without  even  an  extraordinary  pres- 
ence within  it  of  its  Author,  although  it  is,  ordinarily  consid- 
ered, such  a  mechanism,  mathematically  and  superbly  consti- 
tuted. As  matter  cannot  think,  and  therefore  design  or  exe- 
cute, the  inevitable  logical  conclusion  is,  that  such  a  manifestly 
designed  universe  must  have  been  designed,  and  that  design 
in  existing  nature  executed  by  Mind — which  alone  can  be  a 
designing  cause.  We  arrive,  therefore,  at  the  same  conclusion 
at  which  we  have  arrived  in  a  previous  consideration. 

Thus,  the  physical  universe,  as  it  exists,  necessarily  implies 
an  architectonic  Intelligence  and  Will  as  having  designed  it 
and  called  it  into  being  and  as  still  upholding  it.  And,  if  that 
Will  were  withdrawn,  as  already  noted — and  as  the  over- 
whelming evidence  of  both  nature  and  Saipture  proves  it  will 
be  at  some  time — it  would  pass  away  and  cease  to  be.  And 
that  Will  must  be  free  and  sovereign.  Moreover,  the  action 
of  such  Intelligence  and  Will  must  necessarily  be  in  accord- 
ance with  consistent  reason. 

Furthermore,  the  very  necessity  of  intelligence  to  contem- 
plate and  in  some  slight  measure  comprehend  nature,  is  itself 
an  a  pinori  evidence,  an  implied  conclusive  proof,  that  the  na- 
ture thus  contemplated  must  necessarily  be  the  designed  and  exe- 
cuted product  of  Intelligence.  The  tracing  out  of  law  and 
order  in  nature  implies  the  previous  i?nposing  upon  or  placing 
into  nature,  of  that  law  and  order.  Just  as  the  reading  and 
thinking  of  the  thoughts  expressed  on  a  printed  page  presup- 
pose an  intelligent  personality  as  its  author,  who  first  thought 
and  expressed  them,  so  does  our  reading  and  thinking  of 
thought  or  law  expressed  or  implied  in  universal  nature  pre- 
suppose an  intelligent  Personality  as  its  Author.  And  as  the 
mind  or  personality  that  contemplates  nature  must  be  an  en- 


274  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

tity  superior  to  the  merely  physical  nature  which  it  contem- 
plates, so  must  the  Mind  or  Personality  That  has  constituted 
nature,  the  creative  Cause  of  both  the  contemplated  nature  and 
the  contemplating  mind,  be  infinitely  superior  to  the  merely 
contemplating  mind.  And  that  transcendent  creative  Per- 
sonality, Who  is  thus  the  Author  of  both  mind  and  physical 
nature,  or  of  universal  nature  inclusive  of  man,  corresponds 
to,  and  must  necessarily  be  identical  with,  the  Creator  re- 
vealed in  the  Christian  Scriptures,  Whom  the  Christian  wor- 
ships as  Jehovahj  Lord  and  God. 

VI    THE    APPARENT    PURPOSE    OF    CREATION 

As  the  whole  of  universal  nature  teems  with  evidences  that 
it  is  a  designed  creature  and  yet  that  it  is  not  an  end  in  itself, 
the  question  spontaneously  arises,  What  was  the  Divine  pur- 
pose in  its  creation?  Here,  if  anywhere,  from  the  view-point 
of  limited  human  understanding,  we  are  in  the  region  of  mys- 
tery. Surely,  the  reach  of  human  vision  falls  far  short  of 
the  ability  to  penetrate  the  ultimate  mystery  of  the  well-nigh 
infinite  created  existence.  We  may  perhaps  see  but  the  fringe 
of  the  immeasurably  greater  whole  of  God's  creation.  Be- 
yond our  vision  may  lie  existences  of  which  in  our  trammeled 
human  existence  here  we  could  have  no  conception.  Beings 
or  existences  beyond  the  range  of  the  physical  eye  may  lie  all 
around,  above  and  beyond  our  insulated  existence,  of  which 
not  even  imagination  could  form  a  picture.  Confined  within 
our  comparatively  little  island  'universe — perhaps  a  mere  speck 
somewhere  within  the  immeasurable  all-inclusive  higher  uni- 
verse— unenlightened  reason  must  needs  be  humble  in  its  pre- 
tensions to  assign  a  reason  for  the  greater  whole. 

Among  those  who  have  been  compelled  to  acknowledge  this 
limitation  of  the  human  mind  was  even  Thomas  Huxley,  as 
witness  the  following  words:  "The  ultimate  forms  of  exist- 
ence which  we  distinguish  in  our  little  speck  of  the  universe 
are,  possibly,  only  two  [matter  and  energy  or  mind]  out  of 
infinite  varieties  of  existence,  not  only  analogous  to  matter 
and  analogous  to  mind,  but  of  kinds  which  we  are  not  compe- 
tent so  much  as  to  conceive — in  the  midst  of  which,  indeed, 
we  might  be  set  down,  with  no  more  notion  of  what  was  about 
us,  than  the  worm  in  a  flower-pot,  on  a  London  Balcony,  has 


Evidence  from  Design  in  Nature  275 

of  the  life  of  the  great  city"  (Hume,  With  Helps  to  the  Study 
of  Berkeley,  1896,  Appendix,  Note  A,  p,  286). 

And  yet,  we  are  not  left  entirely  without  some  evidence  as 
to  God's  purpose  m  His  creation.  That  man  is  himself,  at 
least  in  part,  the  key  to  the  riddle  of  the  universe,  is  by  no 
means  an  antiquated  belief.  This  view  of  nature  on  the  part 
of  the  Church,  in  her  reliance  upon  the  teachings  of  her  time- 
honored  written  credentials,  is  accepted  or  shared  by  many 
of  the  greatest  thinkers  of  our  day  and  generation.  Indeed, 
toward  this  view  philosophic  speculation,  especially  in  the  light 
of  more  recent  researches  into  man's  mysteriously  wonderful 
psychic  personality,  has  a  tendency  more  and  more  to  gravi- 
tate. And  even  many  matter-of-fact  physical  scientists,  from 
the  writings  of  some  of  whom  we  have  already  quoted  in  this 
work,  are  beginning  to  react  more  and  more  against  the  mate- 
rialistic conception  of  man  and  nature,  and  to  regard  man  as 
at  least  locally  nature's  glorious  crown,  and  perhaps  in  a  meas- 
ure its  final  cause. 

We  believe,  and  are  convinced,  that  the  evidence  from 
nature,  as  well  as  the  evidence  from  the  human  heart,  is 
wholly  in  accord  with  the  evidence  from  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures, that  the  physical  universe  is  the  colossal,  yet  finite  and 
temporal,  scaffolding  spoken  into  being  by  the  Almighty  for 
the  working  out  of  a  higher  spiritual  purpose.  And  that  pur- 
pose is  undoubtedly  the  development  of  the  even  more  glorious 
spiritual  kingdom,  or  spiritual  universe,  in  which  glorified  men 
and  seraphic  intelligences  may  dwell  and  enjoy  the  revelations 
of  His  love  and  the  unutterable  glory  of  His  unfathomable 
infinite  Being  forever. 

Man's  powers  are  developing  with  almost  a  prophetic  con- 
sciousness toward  some  great  final  goal ;  and  we  may  devoutly 
believe  that  they  are  perhaps  even  fitting  him  better  to  under- 
stand and  to  appreciate  the  glories  and  complexities  of  the 
world  beyond,  where  in  God's  higher  spiritual  universe  they 
may  continue  to  develop  throughout  eternity,  yet  forever  in- 
commensurable with  the  capacities  of  his  God,  Even  here, 
the  more  the  intellect  thinks  the  thoughts  of  God  after  Him 
in  His  creation,  the  more  the  heart  must  feel  and  appreciate 
the  pulsations  of  an  almighty  Creator  and  anxious  Father  in 
every   part   thereof. 

And  thus  in  that  spiritual  realm  some  coronation  of  man 


276  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

seems  assured,  in  that  still  higher  glory  which  is  in  store  for 
him — a  fact  also  set  forth  in  the  Christian  Scriptures.  The 
Redeemed  are  said  to  be  destined  to  stand  "before  the  throne, 
and  before  the  Lamb" ;  and  there  they  will  reveal  unto  the 
rest  of  created  intelligences  the  love  of  their  common  Father 
in  the  sacrifice  of  His  Son,  as  those  "who  came  out  of  great 
tribulation  and  have  washed  their  robes  and  made  them  white 
in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb."  In  that  capacity,  it  is  written, 
they  shall  reign  with  Christ  forever.  And  we  may  reverently 
believe  that  they  may  be  the  only  competent  beings  to  declare 
the  story  of  eternal  love  in  Calvary,  to  the  sinless  creatures 
which  may  people  other  realms,  and  perhaps  countless  millions 
of  worlds  that  dot  the  map  of  God's  magnificent  empire. 


CHAPTER  IX 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES  AS  TO  CRE- 
ATION IN  ACCORD  WITH  THE  EVIDENCE 
FROM  NATURE 

We  have  now  shown  at  considerable  length  that  the  phys- 
ical universe  everywhere,  from  the  ultimate  infinitesimal  par- 
ticle to  the  cosmic  whole,  solemnly  testifies  that  it  is  a  temporal 
entity  and  that  it  was  created  out  of  nothing  in  time,  or  at 
time's  beginning,  by  the  omnific  power  of  a  transcendent 
Deity.  We  have  shown,  moreover,  that  this  testimony  is 
matched  by  the  very  nature  of  the  human  mind,  perceived  ma- 
terial nature's  perceiving  complement.  We  shall  now  briefly 
give  attention  to  another,  and  no  less,  but  rather  more,  credible 
witness  as  to  this  great  subject.  We  say,  rather  more  credible 
witness,  because  we  may  be  pardoned  for  considering  the  testi- 
mony of  the  truthful  doer  of  an  act  more  reliable  and  more 
complete  and  intelligible  than  even  the  evidence  deducible 
from  the  act  itself.  That  witness  is,  of  course,  the  Creator 
Himself,  as  He  sets  forth  His  testimony  in  His  Word.  But, 
we  were  almost  about  to  forget  that  many  either  in  whole 
or  in  part  reject  that  Word  as  divinely  inspired,  and  there- 
fore regard  •  it,  from  their  point  of  view,  as  not  acceptable 
evidence. 

And  yet,  even  many  of  those  men  who  deny  not  only  that 
Word  but  even  the  very  existence  of  a  personal  Divinity  in 
and  above  nature,  often  make  remarkable  concessions.  They 
are  compelled  by  the  force  of  an  inexorable  logic  to  concede 
enough  at  least  to  make  them  and  their  honest  followers  open 
to  conviction.  They  are  thus  forced  to  acknowledge  a  divin- 
ity of  their  own  conception,  if  they  have  not  yet  come  to  ac- 
cept the  God  to  Whom  nature  everywhere  eloquently  testi- 
fies and  Whom  the  Christian  Scriptures  so  clearly  reveal. 
Thus,  in  a  late  work  by  Ernst  Haeckel  he  makes  the  follovy- 

277 


278  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

ing  striking  statement:  "Our  Monistic  god,  the  all-embrac- 
ing essence  of  the  world,  the  Nature-god  of  Spinoza  and 
Goethe,  is  identical  with  the  eternal,  all-inspiring  energy,  and 
is  one,  in  eternal  and  infinite  substance,  with  space-filling  mat- 
ter. It  'lives  and  moves  in  all  things,'  as  the  Gospel  says. 
And  as  we  see  that  the  law  of  substance  is  universal,  that 
the  conservation  of  matter  and  of  energy  is  inseparably  con- 
nected, and  that  the  ceaseless  development  of  this  substance 
follows  the  same  'eternal  iron  law^,'  we  find  God  in  natural 
law  itself.  The  will  of  God  is  at  work  in  every  falling  drop 
of  rain  and  every  growing  crystal,  in  the  scent  of  the  rose 
and  the  spirit  of  man"  (Last  Words  on  Evolution,  Tr.  Mc- 
Cabe,   1906,  p.   112). 

Then,  why  should  not  such  a  concession  lead  at  least  an 
honest  searcher  after  truth  to  the  true  Light  that  alone  can 
lighten  the  darkness — to  Him  Who  alone  is  the  key  to  the 
solution  of  this  transcendent  question?  But  here,  too,  pride  of 
intellect  forbids,  for  such  belief  in  the  God  of  Scripture, 
and  especially  as  incarnated  in  the  humble  Nazarene,  is  ap- 
parently beneath  the  dignity  of  a  philosopher,  as  witness  the 
following  words:  "How  could  so  vigorous  a  thinker 
[Goethe],  in  whose  mind  the  evolution  of  organic  life  ran 
through  millions  of  years,  have  shared  the  narrow  belief  of 
a  Jewish  prophet  and  enthusiast  who  sought  to  give  up  his 
life  for  humanity  1900  years  ago?"  (Ibid.,  p.  112).  If  the 
learned  philosopher  had  learned  that  humility  which  charac- 
terized that  Jewish  Prophet,  and  learned  His  teaching,  that  it 
is  the  meek  that  are  blessed,  he,  too,  might  long  ago  have 
bowed  his  head  and  knee  before  the  Son  of  man  and  incarnate 
Son  of  God. 

Therefore,  as  our  foregoing  chapters  have  set  forth  the 
evidence  which  these  men,  even  upon  the  basis  of  their  own 
premises,  are  compelled  to  accept,  we  shall  in  this  chapter  not 
attempt  directly  to  convince  them  with  the  testimony  of  the 
Scriptures.  We  shall  rather  show  that  what  nature  and  the 
constitution  of  the  human  mind  testify  to  be  incontrovertibly 
true  as  to  their  origin,  is  positively  asserted  in  the  Scriptures. 
In  other  words,  instead  of  first  endeavoring  to  prove  the  cre- 
ation ex  nihilo  from  the  Scriptures  and  then  confirming  such 
proof  by  the  evidence  from  nature,  we  have  first  presented 
our  proof  from  the  evidence  of  nature,  that  it  is  such  a  ere- 


Testimony  of  the  Scriptures  279 

ation,  and  shall  now  show  that  this  exactly  corresponds  with 
the  testimony  of  the  Christian  Scriptures.  This  method  should 
be  the  more  likely  one  to  bring  conviction  for  a  creation  ex 
nihilo  by  a  Deity  to  those  who  deny  It,  as  also  it  should  more 
likely  convince  the  rejecter  of  the  Scriptures  that  their  cor- 
respondence with  nature  proves  them  to  be  of  a  piece  with 
nature,  and  therefore  from  the  same  source.  It  should  thus 
almost  compel  conviction  also  that  the  Scriptures  are  no  less 
God-Inspired  than  Is  the  universe  God-created — the  two  being 
related  to  their  common  Author  and  Creator  as  His  Word 
and  His  Work,  whose  respective  testimonies  are  equally  val- 
uable as  evidence  that  they  both  are  creatures  of  the  one  only 
eternal  God. 

I     DIRECT   TESTIMONY    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES 
THAT  THE  UNIVERSE  IS  GOD-CREATED 

What  nature  testifies  at  every  turn,  from  the  imponderable 
ether  to  flashing  suns,  from  revolving  electron  to  pulsating 
life  and  perceiving  soul,  is  emphatically  asserted  in  the  revealed 
Word  of  God.  How  definitely  does  the  writer  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  state  this  In  verse  three  of  the  eleventh  chapter ! 
"By  faith  we  understand  that  the  worlds  have  been  framed  by 
the  word  of  God,  so  that  what  is  seen  hath  not  been  made  out 
of  things  which  appear."  This  clearly  has  reference  to  Gene- 
sis 1:1  and  reasserts  what  is  there  so  unequivocally  declared, 
"In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth." 
Here  is  no  argumentation,  no  speculation.  How  refreshing  to 
come  upon  such  a  positive  statement!  As  already  intimated, 
posit  a  living,  personal,  infinite  and  almighty  God,  and  every 
difficulty  will  vanish  away  like  the  mist  before  the  sunlight. 
Put  the  God-factor  into  your  equation  of  cosmic  potentiality, 
and  the  universe  exists  intelligibly  and  your  problem  Is  solved. 
The  Ex  nihilo  nihil  fit  does  Indeed  still  fit,  but  only  from  the 
conditioned  view-point  of  man,  or  of  any  rational  creature. 
But,  from  the  view-point  of  the  Creator-God,  Who  spake  and 
it  was  done,  it  is  inapplicable.  This  is  not  saying  that  God 
does  not  use  the  materials  and  laws,  previously  created  by 
Him,  as  already  noted,  as  dependent  causes,  as  He  no  doubt 
mainly  does  since  His  first  or  initial  creation,  to  work  out 
His  infinite  plans.     But  it  means  that  He  is  not  limited  to 


28o  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

such  existing  materials  and  laws,  or  that  His  use  of  them  is 
not  a  necessary  use.  And,  of  course,  when  these  materials 
and  laws  did  not  exist,  as  at  the  moment  before  primordial 
creation,  He  first  gave  them  their  being,  so  that  all  existing 
things  are  the  product  of  His  creative  fiat. 

The  nihil  fit  in  that  philosophic  axiom,  as  viewed  from  the 
side  of  man,  becomes  fecit  o?nnia  when  viewed  in  the  light  of 
the  divine  fiat.  Ex  nihilo  nihil  fit,  without  the  divine  power, 
is  indeed  still  true  in  human  consciousness  and  experience,  if 
the  fit  be  regarded  as  abstract  or  purely  impersonal,  and  trans- 
lated nothing  happens,  as  is  the  implied  case  with  the  material- 
ist. For,  even  according  to  the  theistic  conception  of  creation 
nothing  happens  from  nothing;  but  where  nothing  existed  be- 
fore, an  existence  was  called  into  being  or  caused  by  God. 
But,  as  applied  by  the  Christian  to  the  problem  of  primal 
creation,  and  translated  nothing  is  made  (so  as  to  imply  by 
God),  it  is  not  true.  It  must  then  be  changed  to,  or  sup- 
planted by,  Ex  nihilo  Deus  omnia  fecit.  Thus,  where  nothing 
existed  before,  there,  after  God's  creative  Word,  stood  forth 
the  elemental  materials  out  of  which  He  fashioned  all  worlds 
in  the  course  of  six  time  periods.  And,  in  a  real  sense,  then 
only  did  time  begin.  For,  as  time  is  measured  duration,  dura- 
tion by  cycles,  centuries,  years,  etc.,  there  was  really  no  meas- 
ured time  before  the  creation  of  the  measuring  physical  cosmos. 

It  has,  however,  been  stoutly  contended  by  some  writers 
who,  in  a  sense,  accept  the  Scriptures,  that  the  passages  of 
Scripture  already  quoted,  as  also  all  others  that  bear  upon 
this  subject,  can  have  reference  only  to  a  development — 
whether  by  a  personal  supramundane  Deity  or  by  an  imper- 
sonal something  inherent  in,  and  perhaps  cohering  with,  mat- 
ter— from  the  material  chaos  eternally  existing.  This  latter 
view  might  be  designated  as  a  subtle  form  of  pantheism.  In- 
stead of  explaining  again,  however,  the  scientific  absurdity  in- 
volved in  such  a  statement,  already  shown,  let  us  now  briefly 
examine  the  contrary  testimony  of  the  divine  Word  itself. 

II    TWO      FUNDAMENTAL      POSTULATES      OR 
AXIOMATIC  TRUTHS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 

In  a  general  way  it  might  be  said  that  the  Scriptures  no- 
where attempt  to  prove  the  existence  of  a  living  personal  and 


Testimony    of   the   Scriptures  281 

eternal  God ;  nor  do  they  attempt  to  prove  the  creation  in  time, 
ex  nihilo,  of  the  existing  universe  by  Him.  They  take  these 
two  fundamental  truths,  which  might  be  regarded  as  both  sci- 
entifically and  theologically  axiomatic,  practically  for  granted. 
They  are  the  fundamental  postulates  for  divine  Revelation, 
without  which  all  would  be  inexplicable.  Nor  should  their  dem- 
onstration in  the  least  be  necessary,  any  more  than  that  of 
any  axiom  that  may  underlie  reasoning  anywhere  else.  But, 
the  intellectual  vanity  and  pride  of  man  in  attempting  to  go 
beyond  what  is  divinely  revealed  and  necessary,  often  demand 
it.  No,  the  universe  is;  and  therefore  surely  God,  the  uni- 
verse-Creator, must  be.  Therefore,  the  Scriptures  assume 
these  two  primal  facts  as  their  great  twofold  premise.  In 
a  royal  decree,  or  any  other  human  document,  its  author  does 
not  regard  it  necessary  first  to  prove  his  existence  and  by  elabo- 
rate argument  to  convince  the  reader  that  he  is  the  author,  or 
that  the  document  had  a  beginning.  The  existence  of  the 
document  itself  presupposes  the  existence  of  its  author  and 
that  it  was  produced.  Therefore,  these  facts  are  so  self-evi- 
dent as  to  be  taken  for  granted,  without  demonstration,  by 
the  intelligent  reader.  The  same  it  is  only  reasonable  to  ex- 
pect to  be  true  of  God's  Word,  that  document  which  the 
avowed  skeptic  must  acknowledge  to  be  immeasurably  above 
any  merely  human  literature,  as  to  truth  and  wisdom  and 
self-consistency. 

If  man  can  say,  Cogito,  ergo  surrij  without  further  demon- 
stration, should  God  not  be  able  to  say,  Cogito,  ergo  sum:  et 
natura  est,  ergo  areata  est?  Then,  why  should  not  man  be 
able  to  accept  this  implied  dictum  of  God  in  His  Word  and 
re-echo,  iDeus  cogitat,  ergo  est;  et  natura  est,  ergo  a  Deo^ 
areata  estf  Indeed,  by  the  very  same  reasoning  by  which  man 
is  able  to  say  Cogito,  ergo  sum,  he  is  also  able  to  add  with 
equal  confidence  of  truthfulness,  Surn,  ergo  Deus  Creator  est, 
or  in  the  words  of  Derzhavin,  "I  am,  O  God,  and  surely 
Thou  must  be!" 

The  chief  purpose  of  the  Scriptures  is  to  unfold  to  man  the 
divine  plan  of  salvation,  and  incidentally  to  reveal  only  so 
much  of  his  ow^n  and  nature's  origin  as  is  necessary  to  make 
intelligible  that  plan  and  his  destiny  in  accordance  with  it. 
Thus,  the  Scriptures  refer  to  only  as  much  of  these,  and  use 
only  as  much  of  human  history,  as  is  necessary  to  constitute 


282  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

the  great  scaffolding  upon  which  to  construct  and  unfold  or 
consummate  the  divine  plan  for  the  salvation  of  the  human 
race. 

And  what  is  true  of  the  fundamental  postulates  of  the 
Scriptures,  has  a  parallel  also  in  what  might  be  called  a  fun- 
damental postulate  in  nature.  Nowhere  does  God  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  nature  avowedly  present  a  direct  tangible 
proof  of  His  existence.  Here,  too,  that  existence  is  assumed 
to  be  self-evident  from  His  created  work.  And  5^et,  indirectly, 
from  the  cumulative  evidence  of  nature,  which  we  have  al- 
ready shown  to  be  altogether  convincing  to  the  rational  mind 
that  will  accept  certain  axioms  of  reason  on  faith,  He  is 
proved  to  exist,  thus  making  altogether  unnecessary  any  fur- 
ther direct  tangible  proof.  Thus,  as  reason  must  be  joined 
with  faith  in  the  study  of  Scripture,  so  must  faith  be  joined 
with  reason  in  the  study  of  nature.  But,  as  faith  and  reason, 
united  in  the  study  of  God's  work,  lead  to  knowledge;  so  will 
reason  and  faith,  united  in  the  study  of  God's  Word,  lead  to 
knowledge;  and  that  knowledge  becomes  one  in  the  enhanced 
knowledge  of  God.  We  might  as  well,  therefore,  not  look  for 
demonstrative  direct  proof  of  His  workings  in  and  through 
nature.  In  the  words  of  St.  George  Mivart,  "Thus  we 
might  expect  that  it  would  be  a  vain  task  to  seek  anywhere  in 
Nature  for  evidence  of  Divine  action,  such  that  no  one  could 
sanely  deny  it.  God  will  not  allow  Himself  to  be  caught 
at  the  bottom  of  any  man's  crucible,  or  yield  Himself  to  the 
experiments  of  gross-minded  apd  irreverent  inquirers.  The 
natural,  like  the  supernatural,  revelation  appeals  to  the  whole 
of  man's  mental  nature  and  not  to  the  reason  alone''  (Gene- 
sis of  Species,  p.  287). 

We  should,  therefore,  not  look  for  a  definite  proof,  in  the 
Christian  Scriptures,  of  God  and  of  the  creation  of  the  world 
ex  nihilo  by  Him,  as  these  two  great  facts  constitute  the 
manifest  background  of  the  Scriptures  from  Genesis  to  Reve- 
lation. They  are  everywhere  implied  as  the  two  fundamental 
facts  that  are  so  evident  as  to  need  no  demonstration,  be- 
cause all  else  is  built  upon  them.  And  yet,  the  Scriptures  are 
sufficiently  explicit  even  as  to  these  facts  to  leave  no  room 
for  honest  difference  of  opinion  as  to  their  meaning. 


Testimony  of  the  Scriptures  283 

III    THE    THREE    ABSOLUTE    CREATIONS     OF 
THE  SCRIPTURES 

We  have  said  that  there  are  men  who,  in  a  sense,  accept 
the  Scriptures,  but  who  hold  that  creation  according  to  the 
Scriptures  consisted  only  in  a  development  from  eternally  ex- 
isting chaos.  It  should  be  needless  to  say,  however,  that  they 
have  far  from  succeeded  in  establishing  their  point.  It  is 
indeed  true,  as  has  been  contended,  that  the  word  bara  in 
Genesis  1:1,  translated  created,  has  in  its  root  the  idea  of 
cutting,  shaping  or  fashioning — also  crystallized  in  the  Ger- 
man schaffen.  But,  that  is  not  necessarily  sufficient  to  limit 
it  to  the  production  of  something  from  material  at  hand.  In- 
deed, no  other  words  in  any  language  could  absolutely  express 
the  idea  of  an  absolute  creation,  or  of  a  creation  ex  nihilo. 
Human  speech  is  necessarily  phenomenal  and  figurative,  and 
is  always  the  product  of  consciousness  and  experience,  to  ex- 
press ideas  that  come  within  their  range,  as  already  pointed 
out  in  an  earlier  chapter.  But  here  is  an  idea  that  does  not, 
and  could  not,  come  within  the  range  of  human  consciousness 
and  experience;  for  these  can  have  to  do  with  things  only  that 
are,  or  that  appear,  and  not  with  the  origination  of  things — 
as  already  shown. 

And  yet,  it  cannot  but  be  very  plain  that  the  word  bara  is 
used  in  a  discriminative  sense  in  the  creation  story,  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  asa,  the  usual  word  for  shaping,  transforming, 
or  fashioning — as  is  correctly  held  by  many  exegetes,  and  as 
was  also  well  pointed  out  by  Arnold  Guyot.  Thus,  the  word 
bara  is  used  in  verse  i,  of  what  must  be  considered  the  primal 
creation  of  matter.  It  is  used  again  in  verse  21,  of  the  bring- 
ing into  being  of  life.  And  to  this  the  natural  scientist  is 
necessarily  driven  by  his  utter  inability  to  account,  by  natural 
processes,  for  life  in  even  its  most  elementary  forms,  as  we 
have  seen  in  a  former  chapter.  And,  once  more,  the  word 
bara  is  used  in  verse  27,  of  the  bringing  forth  of  man.  And, 
in  other  places,  where  only  unfolding  or  fashioning  from  al- 
ready existing,  previously  created,  materials,  is  spoken  of,  the 
word  asa  is  used.  It  should  be  plain,  therefore,  that  the  sacred 
writer  was  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God  thus  to  use  these  two 
terms,  the  best  available,  w^ith  some  purpose  of  discrimination. 
And  that  purpose  cannot  be  mistaken,  to  have  been  to  distin- 


284  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

guish  between  a  bringing  forth  ex  nihilo  of  something  alto- 
gether new  and  the  bringing  forth  in  new  form  of  what  had 
alreadj^  had  previous  existence  in  its  elemental  material  or 
substance.  Even  where  ba?-a  is  elsewhere  used  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, where  the  ex  nihilo  is  not  necessarily  implied  by  con- 
trast with  an  asdj  it  is  nevertheless  of  God's  work,  while  of 
man's  work  the  asa  or  some  similar  word  is  employed. 

Thus,  the  bringings  forth  of  elemental  matter,  of  primal 
life,  and  of  the  immortal  soul,  are  set  apart  as  different  from 
other  bringings  forth  or  mere  unfoldings.  These  three  can- 
not be  explained  in  any  other  way  than  as  creations  ex  nihilo. 
They  are  the  true  primal  creations,  and  include  the  elements 
of  all  existing  things,  from  which  He  brought  forth  everything 
else.  And,  even  if  this  latter  bringing  forth  is  to  be  regarded 
as  simply  an  unfolding  and  developing  by  secondary  laws  or 
forces,  it  must  have  been,  as  already  explained,  no  less  so  by 
the  same  supreme  divine  Will. 

This  latter  position  has  been  unreservedly  and  reverently 
accepted  by  some  of  the  world's  greatest  naturalists.  Thus, 
the  great  botanist  Asa  Gray  was  a  firm  believer  in  the  Divine 
origin  of  nature  and  the  continued  Divine  immanence  in 
nature.  He  was  a  thorough  believer  in  God's  operations 
through  secondary  causes  in  the  constituted  present  order  of 
the  universe.  He  considered  it  not  in  the  least  against  the 
Creator's  action  through  secondary  causes,  that  He  called  na- 
ture into  being  by  omnipotent  fiat;  nor  did  he  regard  the  pres- 
ent order  of  nature  in  its  myriad  secondary  causes  as  any  evi- 
dence against  that  primal  creation.  Many  striking  passages 
might  be  cited  from  his  works,  especially  his  Darwiniana, 
1884,  iri  proof  of  his  attitude  on  this  point.  And  Sir  Oliver 
Lodge,  realizing  that  the  denial  of  the  Divine  immanence  is 
chiefly  based  upon  the  so-called  law  of  the  supposedly  abso- 
lute conservation  of  energy,  points  out,  in  the  following  words, 
that  such  a  conclusion  from  this  law  of  physics  is  totally  with- 
out warrant:  "The  serious  mistake  which  people  are  apt  to 
make  concerning  this  law  [Conservation  of  Energy]  is  to 
imagine  that  it  denies  the  possibility  of  guidance,  control, 
or  directing  agency,  whereas  really  it  has  nothing  to  say  on 
these  topics:  it  relates  to  amount  alone.  Philosophers  have 
been  far  too  apt  to  jump  to  the  conclusion  that  because  energy 
is    constant,    therefore   no   guidance    is   possible,    so    that   all 


Testimony  of  the  Scriptures  285 

psychological  or  other  interference  is  precluded.  Physicists, 
however,  know  better"  (Life  and  Matter,  pp.  20-21).  For 
an  examination  of  the  supposed  invariability  of  the  law  of 
conservation  see  Chapter  VI. 

Some  men's  conception  of  evidence  for  God  in  nature,  is 
that  alone  of  a  direct  miraculous  interference  with  its  ordinary 
laws,  or  of  a  superseding  of  those  laws  in  special  acts  by 
higher  or  supernatural  laws.  Such  miraculous  operations 
should  indeed  constitute  altogether  convincing  evidence  of 
supernatural  power,  or  of  a  transcendent  and  yet  immanent 
Deity.  But  there  are  other  evidences  in  nature,  as  we  have 
shown,  for  the  operations  of  Divine  intelligence  and  power. 
Indeed,  the  general  absence  of  the  miraculous  in  nature  is  it- 
self a  striking,  and  indeed  convincing,  proof  that  it  is  the  work 
of  an  all-wise,  all-powerful,  unchanging  Creator.  Its  very 
perfection  as  a  creature  makes  miracles  unnecessary  for  its 
ordinary  operations.  And  hence,  their  very  absence  in  nature 
testifies  of  its  creation  by  a  perfect  Beinff.  Hence,  the  ordi- 
nary operations  of  nature,  no  less  surely,  though  less  appar- 
ently or  manifestly,  than  extraordinary  operations  in  miracles, 
testify  to  the  fact  that  they  are  from  and  by  a  Deity,  Who 
also  must  first  have  instituted  universal  nature  with  all  its 
myriad  manifold  laws  for  these  so-called  ordinary  operations. 
Thus,  the  evidence  for  a  God  in  nature  is  overwhelming  that 
nature  is  from  God,  and  that  all  its  operations  are  by  His 
unerring  concurrence,  and  indeed  ultimately  also  by  His  im- 
posed power. 

IV    THE  EVIDENT  CONCLUSION 

We  have  thus  shown  that  the  evidence  of  the  Christian 
Scriptures  is  in  full  accord  with  that  of  nature  and  that  of  the 
human  mind;  namely,  that  the  universe  had  a  beginning  and 
that  it  was  created  ex  nihilo  by  the  omnific  fiat  of  a  supreme 
Being.  We  have  also  shown  that  this  is  the  conclusion  to 
which  many  unprejudiced  men  of  science  are  unalterably 
driven*.  Nor  can  any  other  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  universe 
command  respect  from  thinking  men. 

Any  theory  of  self-existence  would  not  only  not  explain  the 
universe;  but  such  theory  would  be  a  contradiction  in  terms, 
or  an  impossible  absurdity.     Even   Herbert   Spencer,   though 


286  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

he  would  not  openly  accept  the  theistic  theory  of  the  universe, 
especially  in  terms  of  Scriptural  revelation,  was  forced  to 
acknowledge  that  the  atheistic  theory  is  untenable,  and  that 
the  mystery  of  the  universe  and  its  origin  is  unfathomable. 

Although  Spencer  elsewhere  urges  an  objection  against  the 
theistic  theory  of  the  universe,  because  of  its  inconceivableness, 
that  does  not  invalidate  his  position  against  the  atheistic  theory. 
If  it  were  a  mere  matter  of  conceivableness  then  there  might 
be  some  weight  in  the  objection.  But  it  is  a  matter  of  fitness, 
whether  the  atheistic  or  the  theistic  theory  best  explains  the 
universe  and  its  origin.  And,  as  to  this,  there  is  but  one 
choice;  namely,  the  theistic  theory,  as  we  have  demonstrated. 
Nor  is  this  only  a  matter  of  fitness;  but  it  is  even  more  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  whether  we  can  comprehend  it  or  not.  Moreover, 
even  if  self-existence  were  admitted,  it  would  not  account  for 
the  universe,  and  must  therefore  be  ruled  out  of  court. 

Nature  and  Revelation  are  thus  seen  to  agree  that  the  uni- 
verse was  created  ex  nihilo  by  some  supreme  Being.  And,  if 
ever  by  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses  a  truth  can  be  established, 
it  is  in  this  case.  And,  moreover,  their  very  agreement  on 
this  point  should  be  a  convincing  proof  of  their  truthfulness. 
Thus,  viewed  from  the  hither  or  manward  side,  both  nature 
and  Revelation,  like  two  inerrant  index-fingers,  point  to  the 
same  creative  Personality  beyond,  and  yet  truly  within,  them 
both.  And  that  Personality  is  He  Whom  Revelation  calls 
Elohiin,  Jehovahj  Lord,  and  sets  forth  as  a  triune  God,  Cre- 
ator, Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier — Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit. 
And,  conversely,  viewed  from  the  yonder  or  Godward  side, 
both  nature  and  Revelation  are  alike  His  creatures  as  His 
revealed  and  revealing  Work  and  Word.  Then,  as  nature 
constitutes  the  external  basis  of  scientific  investigation,  even 
as  Revelation  constitutes  the  outward  basis  of  religion,  can 
there  be  any  real  conflict  between  true  science  as  founded  upon 
nature  and  true  religion  as  founded  upon  Revelation?  Nature 
and  Revelation,  true  science  and  true  religion,  should  not  be 
contradictory,  but  rather  complementary,  to  each  other. 

To  a  consideration  of  the  above  question,  which  Is  of  great 
importance  to  this  utilitarian — we  might  almost  say,  mate- 
rialistic and  anti-theistic — age,  we  shall  now  proceed  in  what 
constitutes  our  closing  chapter. 


CHAPTER  X 

CONCLUSION:  NO    REAL   CONFLICT  BETWEEN 
TRUE  SCIENCE  AND  REVELATION 

From  what  we  have  seen  thus  far  the  inference  can  readily 
be  drawn  that  there  is  in  reality  no  conflict  between  Revela- 
tion and  true  science,  as  is  often  asserted.  To  a  brief  develop- 
ment of  this  point  we  shall  devote  this  concluding  chapter. 

I    THEIR  SPHERES  TOTALLY  DIFFERENT 

Revelation  has  primarily  to  do  with  man's  spiritual  nature, 
and  with  his  origin  and  destiny.  Physical  science  has  primarily 
to  do  with  man's  physical  nature  and  with  his  physical  en- 
vironment in  the  existing  universe.  Thus,  physical  science  has 
little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the  human  soul,  or  the  spiritual 
nature  of  man,  as  indeed  not  with  any  spiritual  entity.  And, 
hence,  the  existence  of  such  an  entity  as  the  soul  and  the  exist- 
ence of  a  supreme  transcendent  and  immanent  creative  and 
sustaining  Personality,  lie  wholly  beyond  the  normal  realm 
of  scientific  search.  Therefore,  as  far  as  mere  physical  science 
is  concerned,  they  might  be  said  to  be  non-existent,  or  they 
might  or  might  not  exist.  In  the  words  of  an  able  scientific 
apologist,  "The  mere  study  of  physical  nature  does  not  carry 
us  beyond  matter  and  its  processes.  Its  most  elaborate  meth- 
ods can  give  us  no  apprehension  of  God,  or  soul,  or  moral 
sense.  So  far  as  mere  physical  science  can  discern,  *if  God 
had  slept  a  million  years,  all  things  would  be  the  same.'  No 
telescope  or  microscope  can  enable  us  to  detect  freewill  or  any 
other  attribute  of  mind.  Physical  science  can  only  tell  us  of 
physical  objects,  physical  properties,  and  physical  laws"  (Rob- 
ert Flint:  Anti-Theistic  Theories,  p.  io6). 

However,  physical  science,  as  the  body  of  systematized  re- 
sults or  conclusions  from  an  attentive  study  or  contemplation 

287 


288  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

of  nature,  is  itself  a  conclusive  evidence  that  the  contemplat- 
ing mind  or  personality  is  an  entity  different  from  the  merely 
physical  nature  which  is  thus  contemplated.  Attention  to 
something  implies  attention  by  some  one;  and  the  two  in  such 
an  act  are  necessarily  separate  and  different.  If  the  human 
soul  were  in  essence  merely  a  part  of  physical  nature,  then  we 
should  have  the  implied  contradiction  that  in  so  far  as  the 
soul  would  be  a  part  of  physical  nature,  physical  nature  would, 
in  scientific  research,  be  contemplating  itself.  Or,  a  myste- 
riously conscious  fragment  of  physical  nature  would  be  giving 
attention  to  the  unconscious  residue.  Then,  whence  or  how 
did  that  mysteriously  conscious  fragment  of  physical  nature 
attain  consciousness?  And,  while  it  is  true  that  the  soul  of 
man  can  attentively  contemplate  itself,  it  must  not  be  for- 
gotten that  it  does  so  as  a  conscious  personality,  as  also  it  at- 
tentively contemplates  the  environing  physical  universe. 

But,  as  this  point,  that  the  human  soul  is  a  spiritual  entity 
totally  different  from  its  physical  environment  and  even  its 
physical  embodiment,  is  fully  established  in  our  second  and 
third  chapters,  we  shall  not  further  here  develop  the  same. 
And,  of  course,  in  the  light  of  all  the  arguments  of  the  pre- 
ceding chapters  on  that  point,  it  is  equally  unnecessary  here 
to  set  forth  any  further  proofs  of  the  existence  of  a  spiritual 
Personality  above  nature,  by  Whom  alone  nature  exists,  that 
supreme  Being  Whom  the  Christian  adores  as  God. 

Thus  physical  science,  as  such,  is  not  concerned  with  God 
and  the  human  soul,  as  entities  whose  existence  is,  however,  as 
certain  (and  even  more  so)  as  that  of  the  physical  universe, 
whose  Creator  and  Lord  the  former  is  and  the  latter  appar- 
ently its  created  crown.  And,  as  long  as  physical  science  does 
not  pretend  to  arrogate  to  itself  the  whole  realm  of  reality  and 
possible  knowledge,  it  remains  within  its  legitimate  sphere. 
And,  therefore,  even  as  the  existence  of  a  Deity  apart  from, 
and  even  within,  the  material  universe,  and  the  co-existence 
of  the  human  soul  and  ph^^sical  nature,  are  not  in  the  least 
in  conflict  with  the  legitimate  results  of  physical  science,  who 
can  limit  the  possible  existence,  within  and  beyond  the  phys- 
ical universe,  even  of  other  beings  altogether  inconceivable  by 
us? 

Such  transcendent  entities,  as  also  God  and  the  human  soul, 


Conclusion:  No  Real  Conflict  289 

because  not  governed  by  physical  laws,  could  in  no  way  affect 
our  physical  sensorium.  Not  being  limited  by  time  and  space 
relations,  they  might  co-exist  with,  and  around,  us  and  through- 
out, as  well  as  beyond,  the  ultimate  physical  universe — and  this 
without  in  the  least  affecting  human  experience  and  conscious- 
ness. And,  of  course,  they  could  not  be  or  become  objects 
of  scientific  knowledge.  As  experience,  through  its  proper 
avenues  of  approach,  and  consciousness,  have  their  necessary 
limitations,  as  sources  of  knowledge,  in  their  limited  points  of 
contact  with  self  and  nature,  so  their  bodyings  forth  in  the 
pronouncements  of  physical  science  do  not  exhaust  reality. 
Hence,  the  great  whole  of  reality  can  never  come  within  their 
compass.  And  this  is  even  true  of  physical  reality.  But,  as  to 
the  transcendent  hyperphysical  or  spiritual  realities,  conscious- 
ness and  experience,  unaided — and  therefore  physical  science — 
would  forever  have  to  remain  without  a  point  of  contact,  and 
therefore  in  total  ignorance.  No  one  should,  therefore,  at- 
tempt either  to  set  a  limit  to  existence  by  his  limited  expe- 
rience or  to  make  his  finite  reason  the  measure  of  the  im- 
measurably complex  universe  of  the  infinite  and  eternal  God. 

A  person  born  without  the  sense  of  sight  cannot  see  light 
and  color.  He  cannot  even  form  any  real  conception  of 
them.  To  him  all  is  darkness.  And,  as  far  as  he  could  by 
his  own  powers  discover,  both  light  and  color  would  have  no 
existence  or  would  belong  to  the  same  category  as  darkness. 
The  man  born  without  the  sense  of  hearing  can  neither  hear 
sound  nor  can  he  even  form  any  correct  conception  of  sound 
and  music.  And  thus,  to  a  blind  and  deaf  individual,  even 
this  very  tangible  physical  world  is  an  entity  altogether  dif- 
ferent from  the  reality.  Many  of  its  marvelous  phenomena 
of  beauty  are  to  him  totally  non-existent.  And  if,  perchance, 
some  explanation  or  revelation  to  him  of  these  things  were 
attempted  by  a  seeing  and  hearing  personality,  these  phe- 
nomena would  yet  in  a  sense  be  utterly  inconceivable  by  him. 
He  can  only  by  touching,  etc.,  acquire  some  indefinite  idea  of 
grosser  forms  and  movements.  But  he  could  not  perceive 
even  any  effect  of  those  subtle  marvelous  vibrations  that  pro- 
duce light  and  color  and  music. 

Such  an  individual  lives  in  a  world  of  marvelous  beauty, 
but  he  beholds  it  not,  nor  can  he  even  form  any  proper  con- 
ception of  it.     But,  surely,  it  would  be  almost  unpardonable 


290  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

presumption  on  his  part  to  deny  the  existence  of  the  glorious 
rainbow  in  the  heavens  and  to  argue  with  an  entranced  auditor 
against  the  existence  of  the  majestic  symphonies  of  a  Beethoven. 
For  these  things  that  lie  beyond  his  limited  ph}  sical  senses,  he 
must  needs  accept  the  testimony  of  those  who  have  the  neces- 
sary senses  of  perception  to  know  their  reality. 

Like  that  blind  and  deaf  individual,  we  stand  amid  the 
wonders  of  nature.  Though  we  can  perceive,  in  light  and 
color  and  music,  a  minute  fraction  of  the  effect  produced  by 
waves  of  ether  and  waves  of  air,  yet  these  physical  waves  them- 
selves lie  totally  beyond  even  our  natural  sense-organs.  Like 
that  blind  and  deaf  individual,  who  through  his  sense  of  touch, 
etc.,  can  form  some  idea  of  his  physical  environment,  so  we 
with  our  limited  sense-organs  can  acquire  some  knowledge  of 
the  surrounding  universe.  But,  as  in  his  case,  our  limited 
senses  permit  of  but  a  very  partial  knowledge,  and  beyond 
their  range  there  are  realities  even  in  physical  nature  con- 
cerning which  we  can  only  speculate  and  which  we  may  never 
know.  We  are  like  children  watching  a  game,  from  a  point 
some  steps  away,  through  a  small  crack  or  knothole  of  a 
boarded-enclosure.  All  appears  fragmentary  and  partial.  Im- 
measurably the  greater  part  of  the  universe,  from  the  in- 
finitesimally  small  to  the  universal  whole,  in  ten  thousand 
marvels,  lies  beyond  the  range  of  the  whole  outfit  of  our  phys- 
ical senses,  or  is  a  physically  intangible  reality.  Thus,  the 
visible  light  or  color  spectrum  constitutes  the  record  of  but 
a  minute  fraction  of  the  whole  range  of  the  mysteriously  won- 
derful perpetual  dance  of  the*  imponderable  ether.  As  we 
showed  in  a  former  chapter,  it  constitutes  but  one  of  the 
octaves  of  the  many-octaved  key-board  of  vibrations.  And 
yet,  the  other  octaves  no  less  truly  exist,  as  with  our  own 
invented  tools  of  investigation  we  are  more  and  more  dis- 
covering from  their  effects;  but  these  octaves  themselves  we 
cannot  perceive.  If  our  eyes  could  be  so  adjusted  as  to  en- 
able us  to  behold  the  whole  range  of  this  fundamental  reality, 
vistas  of  visions  hitherto  inconceivable  would  lie  before  our 
astonished  gaze.  And  what  is  true  of  the  fragmentary  na- 
ture of  our  knowledge,  through  the  avenue  of  the  very  limited 
visible  spectrum,  of  these  otherwise  intangible  realities  of  the 
physical  universe,  is  true  of  man's  possible  knowledge  of  the 
vast  realm  of  nature  everywhere. 


Conclusion:  No  Real  Conflict  291 

If,  then,  our  knowledge  of  ph^^sical  realities  is  so  fragmen- 
tary and  indefinite,  who  can  assign  limits  to  possible  entities 
transcending  physical  nature  and  all  our  physical  conceptions 
of  them,  even  as  the  gorgeous  rainbow  and  the  entrancing 
symphony  transcend  the  senses  and  even  the  very  conception  of 
the  individual  born  blind  and  deaf?  As  our  additional  senses 
of  apprehension  enable  us  to  perceive  vastly  more  than  is 
possible  on  the  part  of  the  man  born  blind  and  deaf,  so  with 
added  sense-organs  might  an  individual  perceive  even  vastly 
more  than  is  possible  on  our  part.  Thus,  with  sense-organs  so 
adjusted  or  attuned  as  to  enable  one  to  perceive  a  billionfold 
more,  both  in  minutiae  and  in  range,  than  is  normally  pos- 
sible, and  with  other  equally  sensitive  superadded  sense-organs, 
many  of  the  to  us  theoretical  subtleties  of  the  infinitesimal 
world,  as  well  as  of  the  cosmic  whole,  might  become  tangible 
realities.  And  so  might  we  conceive  of  superadded  transcen- 
dent spiritual  faculties,  if  not  confined  within  our  physical 
organism.  And  thus  the  transcendent  glories  of  spiritual  reali- 
ties, of  angelic  beings,  and  even  of  God,  might  entrance  the 
astonished  perceiving  personality.  But,  needless  to  say,  both 
such  added  physical  and  such  spiritual  organs  of  perception 
are  not  in  accord  with  the  provisions  and  needs  of  our  present 
state.  Hence,  such  realities  would  necessarily  not  come  within 
the  range  of  our  direct  knowledge.  Such  realities  would,  there- 
fore, not  be  objects  of  normal  scientific  search  and  therefore 
not  of  normal  scientific  knowledge. 

Hence,  as  the  spheres  of  physical  science  and  Revelation  are 
totally  different,  there  can  be  no  real  conflict  between  them. 
And,  therefore,  also,  it  is  as  becoming  to  the  mere  physical 
scientist  not  arbitrarily  to  deny  the  existence  of  the  transcen- 
dent spiritual  realities,  as  it  is  to  the  scientifically  untrained 
Christian  not  arbitrarily  to  deny  the  existence  of  such  well- 
established  scientific  realities  as  the  luminiferous  ether  and  the 
force  of  gravitation.  As  the  reverent  Christian  must  not  stand 
in  judgment  upon  the  more  definitely  established  results  of 
science,  so  must  the  enthusiastic  scientist  not  stand  in  judgment 
upon  religion  and  its  transcendental,  but  altogether  reasonable 
and  divinely  consistent,  tenets.  Indeed,  the  scientist  should  re- 
joice in  the  knowledge  and  acceptance  of  these  profound 
spiritual  truths,  in  confirming  and  supplementing  his  visions  of 


292  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

God  in  nature,  and  should  become  reverently  religious.  So,  the 
Christian  should  become  even  all  the  more  profoundly  re- 
ligious, as  with  sanctified  understanding  he  is  permitted,  with 
the  scientist  as  his  guide,  to  read  God's  thoughts  after  Him 
also  in  universal  nature  and  to  trace  His  plans  by  following 
His  footprints  almost  to  His  throne  of  wisdom  and  power. 
Nor  should  there  be  anything  to  hinder  the  scientist  from 
being  a  devout  Christian,  and  the  Christian  from  being  an 
enthusiastic  scientist. 

n     PHYSICAL    SCIENCE    NOT    DIRECTLY    CON- 
CERNED WITH  THE  ORIGIN  OF  NATURE 

Revelation  deals  chiefly  with  spiritual  essence  and  ultimate 
Cause.  Physical  science  deals  with  physical  essence  and  sec- 
ondary causes.  And,  as  far  as  pertains  to  our  general  subject, 
the  one  is  concerned  w^ith  the  origin  of  nature  and  of  man 
as  nature's  crown,  the  other  with  nature's  methods  of  opera- 
tion   as   man's   physical    background. 

It  is,  therefore,  not  the  province  of  science  to  deal  with 
ultimate  origins.  Its  province  is  limited  to  already  existing 
things.  It  can  at  the  most  trace  things  only  to  their  existing 
elements;  but  it  is  limited  to  the  hither  side  of  its  own  as- 
sumed primeval  chaos.  It  deals  with  the  universe  only  as  an 
effect  and  in  its  operations  of  secondary  causes^  but  with  its 
First  Cause  science,  as  such,  is  not  concerned.  And,  indeed, 
every  discovery  of  science  is  only  a  discovery  of  other  effects 
or  secondary  causes.  But  Revelation  steps  back  of  that  chaos 
and  speaks  to  us  also  of  its  origination.  And  this,  from  the 
Godward  side,  is  definitely  done  only  by  inspiration ;  but  on  the 
manward  side,  its  meaning  can  really  be  grasped  by  faith 
alone.  Thus  the  believer  need  never  fear  the  definite  results 
of  true  science. 

That  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  universe  lies  beyond 
the  possibility  of  physical  science  to  answer,  is  held  by  many 
scientists.  Thus  James  Wier,  in  speaking  of  ultimate  origins, 
expresses  himself  as  follows:  "In  recent  years  much  attention 
has  been  devoted  to  certain  speculative  theories  with  respect  to 
the  origin  and  ultimate  nature  of  matter  and  energy.  .  .  . 
But  it  is  surely  unnecessary  to  point  out  that  all  questions  re- 
lating to  origins  are  essentially  outside  the  pale  of  true  science. 


Conclusion:  No  Real  Conflict  293 

Any  hypotheses  which  may  be  thus  formulated  have  not 
the  support  of  experimental  facts  in  their  conclusions;  they 
belong  rather  to  the  realm  of  speculative  philosophy  than  to 
that  of  science"  {The  Energy  System  of  Matter,  19 1 2,  p.  3). 
So,  in  line  with  these  statements  are  also  the  following  words 
of  Alexander  Humboldt:  "The  mystery  and  unsolved  prob- 
lem of  how  things  came  to  be  does  not  belong  to  the  em- 
pirical province  of  objective  research,  the  description  of  what 
is/'  And  no  less  emphatic  are  the  words  of  Carl  Snyder — 
though  his  reference  to  supposed  Hebraic  tradition  might  be 
misinterpreted — as  follows:  "Probably  it  is  among  the  naivetes 
of  our  intellectual  childhood  to  suppose  that  the  pursuit  of  the 
scientific  method  will  ever  bring  us  any  nearer  to  the  ultimate 
mystery  of  creation  than  were  the  favored  children  of  Hebraic 
tradition.  Doubtless,  no  more  complete  illusion  ever  possessed 
the  human  mind  than  that  through  its  operations  we  may  pene- 
trate the  origin  of  things"   {The  World  Machine,  p.  398). 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  philosophy  begins  where  science 
ends,  for  it  attempts  to  unify  the  ascertained  facts  of  the 
sciences  and  to  interpret  their  meanings  for  the  explanation  of 
the  universe  and  of  reality.  And,  for  that  matter,  whenever 
inferences  or  conclusions  of  philosophy  become  definitely  estab- 
lished, then  they  cease  to  be  speculations  of  philosophy  and 
become  accepted  facts  or  laws  of  science.  But,  while  philos- 
ophy sometimes  boldly  steps  forth  and  sagely  pretends  to 
speak  its  ipse  dixit  on  these  truly  transcendental  matters,  it 
must  nevertheless  with  trembling  tread  step  back  from  this 
final  borderland  between  the  conditioned  and  the  uncondi- 
tioned, between  existence  and  its  origination,  between  humanly 
attainable  and  humanly  unattainable  knowledge,  and  with 
muffled  voice  exclaim,  "I  can  go  no  farther."  Thus  unen- 
lightened reason  must  here  truly  say  in  the  words  of  Du  Bois- 
Reymond,  "Ignoramus,"  and  "Ignorabimus." 

This  inability  of  unenlightened  human  reason  to  account 
for  ultimate  origins  and  to  attain  reality,  is  well  illustrated  in 
the  following  statement  by  Bergson,  which  amounts  to  a 
philosopher  s  confession  before  the  exalted  altar  of  unattainable 
truth :  "I  have  no  sooner  commenced  to  philosophize  than  I  ask 
myself  why  I  exist;  and  when  I  take  account  of  the  intimate 
connection  in  which  I  stand  to  the  rest  of  the  universe,  the 


294  Creation  Ex  Nihil o 

difficulty  is  only  pushed  back,  for  I  want  to  know  why  the 
universe  exists;  and  if  I  refer  the  universe  to  a  Principle  im- 
manent or  transcendent  that  supports  it  or  creates  it,  my 
thought  rests  on  this  principle  only  a  few  moments,  for  the 
same  problem  recurs,  this  time  in  its  full  breadth  and  general- 
ity: Whence  comes  it,  and  how  can  it  be  understood,  that  any- 
thing exists?  Even  here,  in  the  present  work,  when  matter 
has  been  defined  as  a  kind  of  descent,  this  descent  as  the 
interruption  of  a  rise,  this  rise  itself  as  a  growth,  when  finally 
a  Principle  of  creation  has  been  put  at  the  base  of  things, 
the  same  question  springs  up :  How — why  does  this  principle 
exist  rather  than  nothing"  {Bergsons  Creative  Evolution, 
Mitchell,   191 1,  p.  275). 

Surely,  in  the  light  of  these  facts  it  behooves  both  scientists 
and  philosophers  to  be  humble.  In  the  presence  of  the  mys- 
teries of  nature  that  rise  Sphinx-like  before  the  astonished 
vision  in  unapproachable  glory,  they  must  needs  be  respect- 
ful. And,  before  the  infinitely  more  wonderful  Being  Who 
must  be  in  and  through  and  over  all,  they  should  stand  in  rever- 
ential awe.  Here  is  no  place  for  sage  scientific  utterances 
concerning  those  transcendental  truths  about  nature  and  na- 
ture's God,  of  which  only  by  a  declaration  from  the  very 
Throne  man  has  been  vouchsafed  fragmentary  glimpses.  In- 
deed, science  and  philosophy  may  be  regarded  as  the  two 
branches  of  the  hyperbola  of  possibly  merely  human  knowl- 
edge, which  never  reach,  though  they  may  ever  approach,  the 
asymptotes,  or  straight  lines,  of  absolute  reality  and  truth, 
whose  point  of  meeting  or  centre  is  God. 

Ill  THE  APPARENT  CONFLICT  DUE  TO  UN- 
PROVED PREMISES  AND  UNWARRANTED 
CONCLUSIONS 

Whatever  apparent  conflict  between  Revelation  and  science 
there  is,  has  arisen  from  the  drawing  of  unwarranted  philoso- 
phic conclusions  from  certain  unproved  scientific  theories  as 
premises,  or  from  philosophic  misinterpretations  of  some  scien- 
tific facts.  Thus,  in  adopting  as  a  working  hypothesis  the 
theory  of  evolution,  many  apparently  fair-minded  men  have 
been  lost  in   a   contemplation  of   the  wheels   and   spindles  of 


Conclusion:  No  Real  Conflict  295 

its  supposed  mighty  machinery.  Instead  of  regarding  such 
supposed  evolution  as  the  Creator's  possible  modus  operandi, 
they  have  come  to  treat  it  as  though  it  were  itself  a  causal  divin- 
ity. Thus,  in  dealing  exclusively  vuith  physical  nature,  it  has 
become  to  them  the  great  All  and  the  only  reality,  behind  and 
beyond  which  the  God  of  the  Scriptures  is  totally  eclipsed.  In 
contemplating  the  creature  they  have  come  to  worship  and  serve 
it  more  than,  and  even  to  the  exclusion  of,  its  Creator. 

With  Sadducean  definiteness  these  men  have  come  to  deny 
the  existence  of  angels  and  spirits,  yea  and  even  of  their  own 
souls  as  spiritual  entities,  as  well  as  of  God.  Energy,  as  mani- 
fested in  the  various  forces  of  nature,  is  to  them  an  eternal  or 
self-existing  entity,  together  with  matter  as  its  basis  or  carrier, 
instead  of  the  expression  or  impression  upon  it  of  the  eternal 
God,  perhaps  chiefly  in  the  form  of  relative  positions  of  the 
subdivisions  of  matter  for  consequent  adjustments.  To  them, 
the  universe  is  not  only  the  beginning  of  all  things,  but  also  the 
ultimate  end  and  aim.  Man  they  regard  as  its  own  highest 
product,  instead  of  its  superadded  lord,  for  whose  development 
for  a  higher  sphere  physical  nature,  at  least  in  part,  was  very 
apparently  ordained.  Their  conclusion  that  the  universe  is 
uncreated,  from  the  supposed  evidence  of  the  uniformity  of 
nature  and  the  apparent  persistence  of  energy  and  matter,  is 
about  as  conclusive  as  that  of  a  certain  college  professor,  who 
contended  that  the  fact  that  no  one  had  ever  seen  a  monkey 
turn  or  develop  into  a  man  is  a  conclusive  proof  against 
Darwinism. 

If  an  infinitesimal  being,  endowed  with  reason,  had  its 
abode  somewhere  within  a  giant  printing  press,  its  reasoning 
might  be  similar  to  that  of  some  atheistic  scientists.  To  such 
a  being,  a  second  might  be  as  long  as  to  us  a  century,  and  an 
inch  like  millions  of  miles.  To  it,  the  printing  press  would 
be  a  universe,  with  absolute  uniformity  of  operation  and  with 
apparent  conservation  of  matter  and  energy.  A  thousand 
generations  of  its  beings,  stretching  over  many  thousands  of  its 
years  (equivalent  to  but  an  hour  with  us)  had  seen  no  change 
in  its  laws,  and  therefore  no  miracle.  A  beginning  and  an 
end  would  be  to  them  inconceivable.  It  must  be  eternal,  and 
therefore  uncreated  and  also  indestructible.  And,  as  for  a  ma- 
chinist or  a  printer  above  or  beyond  it,  no  one  had  ever  seen 
him,  and  what  is  more  there  would  apparently  be  no  need  of 


296  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

him.  No  machinist;  no  personal  operator;  no  maker!  The 
machine  is  supposedly  self-operating,  and  apparently  develops 
a  complexity  of  phenomena.  Therefore,  it  is  perhaps  itself 
some  blind  divinity.  And  perhaps  the  whole  is  the  product 
of  chance.  And,  what  wonderful  discoveries,  on  the  part  of 
its  rational  infinitesimal  inhabitants,  as  to  the  running  of  that 
universe  printing-press,  and  what  sage  philosophy  as  to  reality! 

Like  that  infinitesimal  being,  man  is  an  infinitesimal  creature 
in  a  comparatively  immeasurably  vaster  universe.  He  reasons 
and  loses  himself  in  contemplating  its  vast  machinery.  Cen- 
turies of  uniformity  and  conservation  he  takes  to  be  conclu- 
sive evidence  that  such  uniformity  and  conservation  have  al- 
ways been  and  will  always  be.  By  natural  inference  he  con- 
cludes that  it  must  be  all,  and  the  only  reality.  No  Machin- 
ist; no  Operator;  no  God! 

But  what  are  man's  littleness  and  duration  in  God's  mighty 
universe!  They  are  totally  inadequate  to  establish  sufficient 
data  for  conclusions  as  to  infinity  and  eternity.  And,  as  com- 
pared with  the  expanse  and  duration  of  the  whole  immeasur- 
ably complex  creation  of  the  infinite,  eternal  and  omnipotent 
God,  the  universe  known  to  us  might  be  but  a  very  minute 
part,  our  solar  system  but  an  atom  of  planetary  electrons,  and 
a  thousand  centuries  but  a  moment. 

In  line  with  the  above  view  are  the  following  suggestive 
words  of  Sir  Oliver  Lodge:  ''If  the  Deity  has  a  sense  of 
humour,  as  undoubtedly  He  has.  He  must  be  amused  at  the 
remarkable  philosophising  faculty  recently  developed  by  the 
creature,  which  on  this  planet  h*as  become  most  vigorously  self- 
conscious  and  is  in  the  early  stages  of  progress  towards  higher 
things — a  philosophising  faculty  so  acute  as  to  lead  him  to 
mistrust  and  throw  away  information  conveyed  to  him  by  the 
very  instruments  which  have  enabled  him  to  become  what  he 
is.  .  .  .  He  must  be  pleased,  also,  with  the  enterprise  of  those 
eager  philosophers  who  ...  on  the  strength  of  a  few  years' 
superficial  experience  on  a  planet,  by  the  aid  of  the  sense 
organs  which  they  themselves  perceive  to  be  illusory  whenever 
the  actual  reality  of  things  is  In  contemplation,  proceed  to 
develop  the  theory  that  the  whole  has  come  into  being  without 
direct  intelligence,  .  .  .  that  no  Deity  exists,  and  that  it  is 
absurd  to  postulate  the  existence  of  a  comprehensive  and  all- 
inclusive  guiding  Mind"  (Life  and  Matter,  pp.  65-67). 


Conclusion:  No  Real  Conflict  297 

Surely,  science  loses  all  just  claims  to  be  called  knowledge 
when  it  would  sagely  declare  that  the  universe  is  eternal  and 
self-existent  and  that  there  is  no  God.  And,  as  for  proud 
philosophy,  it  can  with  truth  be  said  that  some  of  its  con- 
clusions are  manufactured  ex  nihilo,  or  from  the  purely  non- 
existent. It  often  pretends  to  stand  in  judgment  over  both 
science  and  Revelation,  and  is  often  as  much  in  conflict  with  the 
one  as  with  the  other.  In  the  search  for  truth  and  reality, 
systems  of  philosophy  have,  moreover,  been  pitted  against  sys- 
tems. Meanwhile,  ultimate  reality  and  truth  have  eluded 
every  merely  human  search,  as  the  rainbow  eludes  the  un- 
tutored child  approaching  it  over  the  hill-tops  in  search  of  its 
traditional  imbedded  pot  of  gold. 

IV    TRUE  SCIENCE  AND  PHILOSOPHY  AS  WIT- 
NESSES FOR  REVELATION 

Both  science  and  philosophy,  however,  furnish  the  Chris- 
tian believer,  as  we  have  shown,  with  unassailable  evidence  that 
the  testimony  of  nature,  as  far  as  it  goes,  and  the  spontaneous 
faith  of  his  heart,  agree  with  the  Revelation  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. Their  united  testimony,  moreover,  points  him  to  that 
Revelation  for  the  only  reasonable  definite  solution  of  this 
and  other  otherwise  perplexing  and  indeed  insoluble  problems. 
And  the  answer  of  the  Scriptures  is  that  the  existing  uni- 
verse was  created  out  of  nothing  by  the  Christian's  ever  ador- 
able Almighty  God.  And  thus,  true  science  must  always  neces- 
sarily corroborate  the  divine  Word,  for  nature  and  Scripture 
are  both  from  the  same  Author,  the  one  constituting  the  great 
volume  of  His  Work  and  the  other  that  of  His  Word. 

Indeed,  as  true  faith  in  God  must  have  its  real  objective 
counterpart  in  the  God  it  grasps,  so  must  a  true  science  of 
nature  have  its  true  objective  counterpart  in  the  nature  it 
describes.  And,  as  God  and  nature  are  related  as  Creator  and 
creature,  as  we  have  shown,  the  object  of  faith  can  be  no  lesl 
a  reality  than  that  of  science,  but  rather  more.  And  yet, 
both  faith  and  science  must  be  in  accord  with  reason.  There- 
fore, the  enlightened  reason  of  man  must  be  matched  by  the 
facts  of  both  faith  and  science.  Thus,  as  the  reason  of  God 
is  reflected  both  in  nature  and  in  the  reason  of  man,  the 
universe  must  correspond  with  faith,  as  well  as  with  enlight- 
ened human  reason. 


298  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

V    A  PLACE  FOR  FAITH  IN  SCIENCE,  AS  WELL 
AS  IN  RELIGION 

As  already  intimated,  faith  in  some  form  is  necessary  in 
science,  as  well  as  in  religion.  In  all  his  reasoning  the  man 
of  science  must  exercise  faith.  He  must  believe  the  evidence 
of  his  senses,  whether  that  evidence  be  direct,  or  indirect  through 
his  instruments  of  investigation.  He  must  believe  In  the  uni- 
form operations  of  the  accepted  laws  of  nature,  and  by  faith 
he  must  accept  those  laws.  He  must  believe  that  like  causes 
are  always  followed  by  like  effects,  or  that  like  effects  must 
have  been  preceded  by  like  causes.  He  must  believe  in  the 
continuity  of  his  own  personal  Identity,  the  evidence  of  con- 
sciousness, and  the  reliability  of  the  laws  of  thought.  He  must 
continually  set  up,  and  work  according  to,  theories  that  he  may 
never  be  able  to  prove;  and  he  must  accept  as  parts  of  work- 
ing hypotheses  many  supposed  elements  of  knowledge  that  for- 
ever elude  demonstration.  In  all  these  things  he  must  believe 
in  order  that  he  may  know.  Faith  Is  for  him  thus  in  many 
respects  the  highway  to  knowledge.  But  his  faith,  or  funda- 
mental and  often  apparently  instinctive  beliefs,  like  those  of 
the  man  of  God,  must  be  matched  by  objective  reality  to  be- 
come a  safe  guide  to  scientific  certainty.  In  the  words  of 
Bertrand  Russell,  "All  knowledge,  we  find,  must  be  built  upon 
our  Instinctive  beliefs,  and  if  these  are  rejected,  nothing  is  left. 
But  among  our  instinctive  beliefs  some  are  much  stronger 
than  others,  while  many  have,  »by  habit  and  association,  be- 
come entangled  with  other  beliefs,  not  really  instinctive,  but 
falsely  supposed  to  be  part  of  what  is  believed  instinctively" 
{The  Problej7is  of  Philosophy,  p.  39). 

In  this  respect,  there  Is  a  real  sense  In  which  science  and 
religion  must  approach  truth  from  the  same  point  of  view ; 
and  both  must  approach  It  with  humility.  The  man  of  God 
says,  upon  the  evidence  of  God's  revealed  Word,  /  believe  that 
I  may  know.  The  man  of  science  must  no  less  say,  upon  the 
evidence  of  God's  revealed  Work  in  nature  and  in  himself, 
/  believe  that  I  may  knotv  (though  there  Is  a  sense  In  which 
he  may  say,  I  know  that  I  may  believe).  And  upon  their 
respective  data,  the  elements  or  foundations  of  which  rest 
upon  faith  alone,  both  grow  from  more  to  more.  And  their 
ultimate   goal,    if   both    are  honest   in    their   search,   will,    re- 


Conclusion:  No  Real  Conflict  299 

spectively  through  His  Word  and  through  His  Work — His 
Revelation  and  His  cosmic  nature — be  the  God  and  Author 
of  both  nature  and  Revelation.  They  thus  start  together,  or 
upon  a  common  principle,  and  after  apparently  following 
very  different  routes  or  avenues  of  approach,  they  must  needs 
meet  together  where  they  end.  And  there  is  no  reason  why 
the  man  of  science  and  the  man  of  God  should  not  be  one. 
Indeed,  the  man  of  science,  above  all  others,  should  be  a 
reverent  man  of  God. 

The  man  of  God,  in  following  whithersoever  faith  in  God's 
Word  leads  him,  need  not  fear  the  legitimate  end  whither  faith 
in  God's  Work  also  leads  him,  as  both  will  lead  to  God. 
Nor  need  the  man  of  science,  in  tracing  the  footprints  of  his 
Creator  after  Him  in  His  creation,  fear  with  all  humility  to 
follow  the  leadings  of  faith  through  Revelation's  trailing 
clouds  of  glory  to  His  throne.  The  man  of  God  can  be  an 
enthusiastic  scientist,  as  already  noted,  and  the  man  of  science 
can  be  a  devout  and  devoted  man  of  God.  Indeed,  both 
should  be  upon  their  knees  before  the  same  and  only  living 
God. 

We  do  not  mean,  however,  that  religion  can  take  the  place 
of  science,  or  that  science  can  take  the  place  of  religion. 
Science  can  not  satisfy  the  yearnings  and  aspirations  of  the 
human  soul.  It  knows  no  sin,  no  atonement,  no  redemption, 
and  no  Redeemer.  It  can  only  guess  at  many  other  truths  of 
Revelation,  such  as  even  God's  love,  man's  exalted  nature 
here  and  the  high  destiny  of  the  redeemed  in  a  higher  life 
hereafter.  But,  surely,  this  is  not  against  science:  it  is  alto- 
gether true  to  its  real  nature  and  proper  sphere.  Therefore, 
the  man  of  science  must  supplement  his  science  with  religion. 
He  must  accept  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  the  same  blessed 
Saviour,  Whom  the  Christian  adores,  if  he  would  be  saved. 
The  man  of  God  has  no  such  relative  need  of  science  as  the 
man  of  science  has  of  religion.  Salvation  is  not  dependent 
upon  faith  in,  or  knowledge  of,  God's  handiwork.  It  is  de- 
pendent upon  faith  in  the  revealed  Saviour  of  the  Christian 
Scriptures. 

This  fact  of  the  relative  value  of  science  and  religion  for 
the  higher  interests  and  needs  of  man,  is  well  illustrated  by 
an  old  story  of  a  philosopher  and  a  boatman.  The  two  were 
in   a  boat  on   the   lake;   and,   while    the   boatman   was   busy 


300  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

rowing,  the  philosopher  was  as  busy  talking  philosophy  to 
him.  The  philosopher's  conversation  taking  the  form  of  ques- 
tions, he  asked  the  boatman,  "Have  you  read  Socrates?"  Upon 
receiving  a  negative  answer,  the  philosopher,  in  his  philosophic 
enthusiasm,  said  to  the  boatman,  "Then  one  quarter  of  your 
life  is  lost."  Soon  the  philosopher  followed  his  first  question 
by  another,  "Have  you  read  Plato?"  Again  receiving  a  reply 
in  the  negative,  the  philosopher  said  to  the  boatman,  "Then 
another  quarter  of  your  life  is  lost."  And  after  some  further 
philosophic  expatiation,  the  philosopher  asked  the  boatman, 
"Have  you  read  Aristotle?"  The  boatman,  to  whom  these 
names  were,  of  course,  only  so  many  meaningless  words,  again 
returned  a  negative  answer,  upon  which  the  philosopher  said 
to  him,  "Then  three  quarters  of  your  life  are  lost."  By  this 
time  a  gust  of  wind  came  up ;  and  the  boat,  now  filling  with 
water,  gradually  began  to  sink.  The  boatman,  rising  from  his 
seat  at  the  oars,  pointed  out  to  the  philosopher  the  imminent 
danger.  And,  beginning  to  take  of¥  his  coat  in  order  to  be 
prepared  for  the  worst,  the  boatman  asked  the  philosopher, 
"Can  you  swim?"  And,  upon  receiving  a  negative  answer, 
he  said  to  the  philosopher,  "Then  the  whole  of  your  life  is 
lost." 

The  splendid  reasoning  of  Socrates,  Plato  and  Aristotle, 
were  indeed  a  source  of  great  intellectual  pleasure  to  the 
philosopher.  But,  when  the  boat  began  to  sink,  his  knowledge 
of  the  speculations  of  these  ancient  Greek  sages  could  not 
save  him  from  drowning.  And,  while  the  boatman  truly 
missed  much  of  the  delights  of  intellectual  stimulation,  by 
not  being  able  to  think  the  thoughts  of  those  ancient  reasoners 
after  them,  his  safety  depended  alone  upon  his  ability  to  swim. 

So,  while  science  and  philosophy  have  their  truly  great  value 
for  man  in  his  present  physical  environment,  no  scientific  at- 
tainments, nor  any  amount  of  philosophic  speculations,  can 
save  his  undying  soul.  Faith  in  the  appointed  Saviour  of  the 
Soul,  or  that  appointed  Saviour  Whom  we  grasp  by  faith, 
alone  can  do  that.  Thus,  here,  too,  the  spheres  of  science  and 
religion  are  totally  different.  The  former  has  to  do  with 
man's  physical  life  and  his  physical  environment  here;  the 
latter  has  to  do  with  man's  spiritual  life  here  and  his  spiritual 
destiny  and  environment  hereafter.  And  yet,  these  two  can 
truly,  and  should,  co-exist,  as  man  is  both  physical  and  spiritual. 


Conclusion:  No  Real  Conflict  301 

Both  are  necessary,  the  one  in  the  physical  sphere,  the  other  in 
the  spiritual  sphere.  But  this  necessity  is  not  one  of  equal 
degree.  And,  therefore,  if  a  choice  between  the  two  were 
necessary,  upon  the  supposition  that  the  two  could  not  co- 
exist, or  that  the  one  excluded  the  other,  one's  immeasurably 
more  enduring  interests  would  lie  in  the  choice  of  religion. 
However,  as  already  pointed  out,  the  two  can  co-exist.  And, 
as  both  ultimately  rest  upon  faith,  the  scientist  and  the  Chris- 
tian should  here,  as  well  as  in  their  goal,  find  a  common 
unifying  principle.  And,  surely,  the  scientist  can  not  deny 
that  true  religion  ultimately  leads  to  knowledge,  any  more 
than  the  Christian  can  deny  that  true  science  leads  to  knowl- 
edge. Hence,  the  one  should  be  a  Christian  scientist,  while 
the  other  can  be  a  scientific  Christian. 

The  mistake  that  is  often  made,  is  to  assume  that  science, 
and  science  alone,  is  knowledge,  and  knowledge  alone,  and 
that  religion  is  faith  alone  without  knowledge.  Therefore, 
some  men  of  science  have  professedly  rejected  religion,  while 
some  men  of  God  have  professedly  rejected  science.  The 
former  have  avowedly  refused  to  believe,  and  the  latter  have 
inadvertently  refused  to  know.  But,  in  the  light  of  what  we 
have  just  said,  and  of  other  things  contained  in  this  volume, 
it  is  seen  that  there  is  a  legitimate  place  for  faith  in  both 
religion  and  science,  as  also  there  is  for  knowledge. 


VI    NATURE  AND  REVELATION  UNITED  IN  TES- 
TIFYING TO  THEIR   COMMON    ORIGIN 

The  supposed  conflict  between  Christianity  and  legitimate 
or  true  science  has,  therefore,  no  existence  in  reahty.  This, 
then,  should  also  afford  additional  evidence  that  the  Scriptures, 
which  constitute  the  credentials  of  Christianity,  must  have 
come  from  the  same  source  as  that  from  which  the  universe, 
upon  which  science  is  founded,  has  come.  Nature  and  Revela- 
tion agree  in  their  testimony  as  to  the  origin  of  the  universe. 
The  evidence  of  both  is  in  accord  with  consistent  reason. 
Therefore,  if  nature  came  from  God,  as  we  have  proved  it 
did,  then  the  natural  inference  should  be  that  the  Scriptures 
also  came  from  God.  The  reason  of  man  and  the  spontaneous 
faith  of  his  yearning  heart  are  matched  alike — though  not  with 


302  Creation  Ex  Nihilo 

equal  clearness  and  completeness — by  the  revelations  of  Scrip- 
ture and  the  revelations  of  nature.  The  reason  of  God  in  its 
impress  upon  the  human  soul  and  its  counterpart  in  universal 
nature  and  in  the  Christian  Scriptures,  should  indicate  their 
common  origin  in  that  supreme  reason  of  the  everlasting  God. 
To  deny  the  divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures,  would  thus  almost 
necessarily  involve  a  denial  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  uni- 
verse and  of  the  human  soul.  And  to  deny  the  divine  origin 
of  the  universe  and  of  the  human  soul,  is  to  end  in  a  be- 
w^ildering  maze  of  contradictions,  impossibilities  and  absurdi- 
ties, as  demonstrated  in  the  preceding  chapters,  w^hile  such 
denial  only  deepens  the  profound  mystery  of  existence.  But, 
to  affirm  or  accept  the  divine  origin  of  the  universe  and  of  the 
human  soul,  should  almost  necessarily  compel  the  affirmation 
or  acceptance  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures.  There- 
fore, as  we  believe  we  have  conclusively  proved  the  divine 
origin  of  the  universe  and  of  the  human  soul,  we  believe  we 
have  made  the  rejection  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures 
impossible. 

We  hold,  therefore,  that,  even  though  science  of  itself  can- 
not resolve  the  great  mystery  of  origin  and  existence,  and 
even  though  it  repeatedly  errs  in  its  supposed  conclusions,  it 
must  nevertheless  also  redound  to  the  glory  of  God.  In  its 
legitimate  conclusions  from  a  study  of  nature,  it  must  neces- 
sarily lead  the  open-minded  man  to  a  deeper  appreciation  of 
the  greatness  and  glory  of  the  great  Author  and  Lord  of  both 
nature  and  man.  Therefore,  the  man  of  science,  who  also 
understands  and  accepts  God's  revelation  of  His  greatness  and 
love  and  His  plan  of  salvation  in  the  Scriptures,  should — be- 
cause of  his  profounder  understanding  of  God's  works — all 
the  more  reverently  bend  his  knee  before  that  infinite  and 
eternal  Being,  for  Whom  nature  and  Scripture  are  mutually 
confirmatory  and  reenforcing,  and  in  a  sense  supplementary, 
revelations. 

The  reverent  prayer  of  every  true  scientific  investigator 
should  be  for  both  wisdom  and  grace.  It  should  also  be  a 
prayer  of  genuine  thanksgiving,  as  was  that  of  the  great 
Kepler,  who  in  his  dedication  to  God  of  his  Harmony  of  the 
World,  gave  expression  to  the  following  fervent  prayer:  "O 
Thou,  Who  through  the  light  of  Nature,  dost  arouse  in  us  the 
longing  after  the  light  of  grace  in  order  to  exalt  us  into  the 


Conclusion:  No  Real  Conflict  303 

light  of  glory,  I  thank  Thee,  O  my  God  and  Creator,  that 
Thou  dost  permit  me  to  rejoice  in  Thy  works." 

Enough  has  thus,  we  believe,  been  said  to  show  not  only  the 
reasonableness  of  the  Christian  conception  of  creation  and  of 
the  Biblical  cosmogony,  properly  interpreted,  but  also  the 
utter  inadequacy  of  .any  other  theory  whatsoever  to  account  for 
the  universe.  The  physical  universe  has  been  proved  by  differ- 
ent methods  and  by  an  overwhelming  accumulation  of  evi- 
dence to  be  manifestly  a  finite  entity,  and  to  be  dependent 
from  the  ultimate  particle  to  the  all-comprehensive  whole. 
It  is  thus  seen  necessarily  to  be  a  creature  of  a  higher  Being, 
Whom  we  have  shown  to  be  a  transcendent  spiritual  Person- 
ality. It  is  also  seen  that  this  finite  and  dependent  universe 
was,  by  that  supreme  spiritual  Personality,  called  into  being, 
or  created  ex  nihilo,  or  without  the  use  of  any  previously  ex- 
isting entity  or  entities.  We  have  shown  that  what  is  thus 
so  conclusively  deducible  from  the  existing  universe  itself  cor- 
responds to  the  unmistakable  testimony  of  what  we  know  as  the 
Christian  Scriptures.  We  have  shown  also  that  that  trans- 
cendent spiritual  Personality  Whom  nature  thus  ultimately 
reveals,  is  the  same  as  the  God  of  Revelation,  to  Whom  na- 
ture and  Revelation  are  thus  related  as  His  Work  and  His 
Word.  We  may,  therefore,  consider  our  purpose  in  this 
volume  to  be  accomplished. 

May  this  humble  contribution  in  support  of  the  Scrip- 
tural doctrine  of  creation  be  the  means  of  leading  many  to 
the  feet  of  the  God  of  both  nature  and  Revelation.  May 
it  lead  Godward  many  an  honest  doubter  and  many  an 
ardent  searcher  after  truth.  May  it  restore  to  an  unfaltering 
faith  many  who  have  wandered  away  from  it.  And,  may  it 
strengthen  in  their  faith  those  who  have  not  drifted  from  it, 
as  well  as  put  into  their  hands  the  weapons  with  which  to 
meet  those  who  assail  this  article  of  their  faith.  And  may  it, 
moreover,  in  thus  setting  forth  some  of  the  wonders  of  the 
Creator  in  the  creation  which  is  His  marvelous  handiwork,  also 
in  this  humble  way  redound  to  the  glory  of  God.  This  is 
the  devout  wish  and  prayer  of  one  who  would  ascribe  all 
honor  to  Him  Whom  he  delights  in  this  humble  way  to  serve. 


INDEX 


Absolute,   the,  25,  Ssflf.,  237 

not  limited  by  relation,  psff-*  237!!. 
as  cause,    185 
all  life   from  life,   49 
Absolute  creation,   21 
three   acts   of,    283 
Absolute   destruction,    21,    28 
Adaptations    in    nature,    evidences    of 
design,    246,    266ff. 
of  everything  to  everything  else,  267 
Affinity,  Chemical,    193 

law  of,   246ff. 
Alcyone,  as  supposed  central  sun,   105 
Aliotta,    on    transcendental    nature    of 
life,    41 
on  view-point   in   science,    175 
Alpha   Centauri,    129 
Alpha    particles,    202,    205,    261 
Alpha    rays,    202 

Annihilation,     172,     176,     i87ff.,     215, 
221,   232 
the   idea   of,    a   transcendental    one, 
21  ff. 
Anthropomorphism     and      anthropopa- 
thism,  a  necessity  of  human  con- 
ception and  language,   24,   25 
Anti-theistic,    materialism,    29ff. 
Apex    of    sun's    way,     107,     108,     119 
Arcturus,    velocity    of,    120,    121,    124 
Aristotle,     on     Plato's     definition     of 

man,   37  . 

Arrhenius,     Svante,     on     eternity     of 
matter,   energy  and  life,    16 
on    extra-terrestrial    origin    of    life, 

42ff. 
against   spontaneous  generation,   48 
theory    of    unlimited    universe,    76, 

77 
on  ceaseless  adjustment   of  energy, 

169 
on  difficulty  of  an  eternal  evolution, 

182,    183 
on   size  of  electron,   253 
Asa,    meaning   of,    284 
Astronomy,     i02ff. 
Atheism    illustrated,    295 ff. 
Atomic  theory,   explained,    I92ff. 
fatal    to    pantheism,    194 
imiverse     temporal     according     to, 

an  argument  for  design,  243 
Atoms,    created    products,    I94 
weight   of,   243 
kinds   of,    243 


Atoms,   structure   of,   21  iff.,   252 
union  of,   243,    246 
in   ceaseless   motion,    250,    261 
miniature   stellar   systems,    252 

Average  velocity  of  stars,    ii9ff. 

Avogadro,    law    of    gases,    251 

Bacon,  Francis,   dictum  on  knowledge 

of  philosophy,   74 
Baer,    Karl   Ernst   von,   a   believer,   in 

later    life,     73 
Bain,    Alexander,    theory    as    to    sub- 
stance,   31 
on  material  origin  of  life  and  mind, 
62 
Ball,   Sir  Robert,  on  nebular  hypothe- 
sis, 30 
on  dark  bodies,    116 
on   space,    164,    165 
Bara,   meaning  of,   283,   284 
Becquerel  and  his  rays,  201 

nature  of  rays,   201 
Beginning,     present    universe    had    a, 
70,    180,    i86ff.,  232,   279,  283ff. 
evidence     of,     from     incompleteness 

of  evolution,    i8off. 
evidence    of,    from    Scripture,    279, 
283 
Bergson,  Henri,  on  life  as  more  than 
matter,  39 
a  philosopher's  confession  as  to  ulti- 
mate origins,   294 
Berkeley,    Bishop,    conception   of   mat- 
ter,   190,    195 
Beta,   rays,    202;    particles,    203ff.,   261 
Bickerton,   A.  W.,   on  development  as 

an  eternal  process,    16 
Bigelow,    S.    Lawrence,    on    conserva- 
tion   of   energy,    58 
on    conservation    of    matter,    59 
Blindness,     an    illustration    of    man's 

limitations,   289ff. 
Boatman  and  philosopher,  relative  im- 
portance of  religion  and   science, 
299ff. 
Bode's  law  of  planetary  distances,  248 
Boscovich,    on   nature    of   matter,    195 
Bragg,    on    X-rays,    201 
Brahma,    15 
Brunhes,   M.   Bernard,   rejects  law  of 

~  conservation    of  energy,    174 
Buchner,    Carl,    on    material   origin   of 
life  and  mind,   62 
on  an  eternal  universe,  76 


305 


3o6 


Indi 


ex 


Buffon,   on  potentiality   in   organisms, 

241 
Butler,    Samuel,   on  design,   239 

Calderwood,   Henry,   Hamilton's  letter 

to,   103 
Cathode  rays,   203;   Cathode  particles, 

261 
Cause,    definition   of,    83 
absolute,    185  ff. 

see     First     Cause     and    secondary 
causes 
Centauri,    alpha,    129 
Centre-of-force      theory      of      matter, 
i95ff. 
Will    necessary    to    make    it    work, 

196 
universe  temporal  according  to,    196 
Centre     of     universe,     theory     as    to, 

losff. 
Chance,    objection  answered,    97 

no     explanation    of    mechanism    of 

nature,  233 
a   word    to   hide   ignorance,    269 
Changes  in   configurations  of   constel- 
lations,   120 
Chapman,  on  number  of  fainter  stars, 

112 
Chemical  affinity,    193,  246S. 
Chemical  elements,   see   Elements 
Chemical  union,   cause  of,   211 

design  in,  246 
Chemical    valency,    cause    of,    249 
Chemistry,    development    of,    192 
Christian,    the,    as    scientist,    292,    298 
Clausius,    mechanical    theory    of    heat, 

168 
Clerk-Maxwell,   on   indestructibility   of 
matter,  27,   28 
on    pressure   of    light,    217 
on  molecule  as  a  manufactured  ar- 
ticle,  244 
Coal   sack  theory,    150 
Cohn,     Ferdinand,     theory     of     life's 

origin,  43 
Colors,   cause  of,   264 
Conclusions,  unwarranted,   a  cause  of 

conflict,    294ff. 
Conditioned,      the     mind,      I9ff.,      96, 
289ff.,    293ff. 
the  universe,   20,   75flF. 
a,  not  self-existent  or  eternal,   56 
Configuration         of         constellations, 

changes   in,    120 
Conflict,  no,  between  science  and  Rev- 
elation,  287ff. 
apparent,    due    to    unproved    prem- 
ises,   etc.,    294 
Consciousness,     not    due     to     physical 

processes,    66 
Consciousness  and  experience,  not  the 

measure    of    reality,    25,    2896?. 
Conservation    of    energy,    58ff. 
a  proof  of  creation  ex  nihilo,   59 
law  questioned,    171;   law  examined, 

I73ff. 
law    not    established,    230,    231 


Conservation    of    matter,    57ff. 
a  proof  of  creation   ex  nihilo,   59 
law  disproved,   205  ff.,  213,  224,    231 
Consolidation,  theory  of  stellar,   171 
Constant,   matter  or  mass  and  energy 

not,   210,   213,  220,   223ff.,   231 
Constellations,    changes    in    configura- 
tions,  120 
Continuous   medium,    I98ff. 
Coronium,   discovery  of  element  fore- 
cast,  248 
Corpuscle,  nature  of,   209ff. 
Corpuscular    nature    of    positive    elec- 
tricity,  212 
Correlation,     of    mind    and    the    uni- 
verse,   156,    163 
of  time  and  space,    135,    161 
of  finiteness  and  dependence,   s6ff., 

166 
of    energy    and    matter,     177,    213, 

220,  223ff,,   255,  266 
of  nature  and  Revelation,   286ff. 
Cosmological  theorems  of  Haeckel,   75 
Cosmozoic  hypothesis,  42ff. 

inadequate,   45  ff. 
Creation,  not  a  limitation  of  the  Ab- 
solute,   95;    purpose   of,    274ff. 
mediate  and  immediate,  27  iff.;  abso- 
lute,  2 1 
Creation    ex   nihilo.    idea   transcenden- 
tal,   igff. 
man's    limitation    as    to    conception 

of,    igff. 
man's    limitation    as    to    expression 

of,   24 ff. 
true    meaning    of,    21,    280 
three   acts  of,   283 
Creative    divinity    of    monism,    225ff. 
Creator,    greatness   of,    152,    153 

not    limited    by    physical    laws,    272 
Critical   velocity  of   stars,    i2iff. 

and  the  law   of  gravitation,    123 
Crookes,   Sir  William,  on  radiant  mat- 
ter,   203,    218 
Crystallization,    compared    with    living 

organism,    38 
Curie,     Mme.,     discovery    of     radium, 
201 
on   heat  of  radium,   204 
on  generation  of  radium  family,  205 
Cyclic   evolution,   theory   of,    i83ff. 
Cygni,   61    (star),    104 

Dalton,    atomic   theory,    192 

Darwin,    Charles,   on  need  of  creative 

Divinity,    68,    69 
Darwin,    Erasmus,    on    potentiality    in 

organisms,    241 
Darwinism,    42,    43 
Deity,   absolute   freedom  of,   236 
necessary    back    of    evolution,     182, 

235 
necessary  back  of  every  motion  and 

adaptation,    263,    267,    269 
Haeckel's  necessity  of,  278 
Delta    Lyrae,    as   apex   of   sun's    way, 

107 


Index 


307 


Delta    rays,    203 

Democritus,    theory    of    repeating   uni- 
verses,   183 
atomic  theory,   192 
Demonstration,   of   extent   of  universe 
from    actual    amount    of    light    re- 
ceived,   i28ff.,    144 
Density    of   star-distribution,    117,    129 
as    basis    of    determining   extent    of 
universe,    ii7ff. 
Dependence,   an  evidence  of  creation, 
as    against    self-existence,    56 
an  evidence  of  finiteness,  75ff. 
simultaneous  or  synchronous,    77^. 
no    series    of,    infinite,    78 
successive   or   chronological,    8off. 
Derzhavin,    on    God's    greatness,     153 
on   man's   greatness,    154 
on   God's  existence,   281 
Descartes,     dictum    on    personal    exis- 
tence,   39,    63,    281 
conception   of  matter,    190,    195 
Design,    implies   creation,    233!?. 
unity   of,    234 

in    every   living   organism,    239flf. 
objection  to  term  answered,  236!!. 
in    inorganic    nature,    242^. 
in  chemical   union,    246 
in    atomic    and    molecular    motions, 

250 
in   electronic  motions,    254 
in   energy   of   universe,    259ff. 
in    every    vibration    and    adaptation, 

263 
to    infinitesimal    details,    267 
in    provisions    of    sex,    240,    270 
Determinism   of  materialism,    52 
confusion   in   moral   order,   53 
Development,     monistic,     Haeckel    on, 
16 
as    an     eternal     process,     Bickerton 

on,  16 
of  man's  powers,   276 
Devolution,    the   great    moving   princi- 
ple,  208 
Disintegration,    the    cause   of   radioac- 
tivity,   204flF. 
probably  true  of  all   elements,   208, 
209 
Dissipation,    of  energy,    168 

of  heat,    169,    170 
Distribution    of  stars,    11  iff.,    130 
Divinity,    monism's    creative,    22sflF. 
a    supreme    Deity    necessary,    228ff., 
262 
Dobereiner,   "triads,"   247 
Doppler's  principle,    119 
Dualism,    philosophic,    64ff. 
DuBois-Reymond,   a  dualist,   65 
a    believer    in    matured    life,    73 
on  limitation   of  knowledge,   293 
Duncan,    Robert    Kennedy,    on    mate- 
rialism's   explanation     of    organic 
nature,   36 
on  life  as  more  than  matter,  39 
on     necessity     of     guiding     Intelli- 
gence, 68 


Eddington,  A.  S.,  on  gradual  decrease 

in     density     of     star-distribution, 

112,    113 
on   density   in   stars,    117 
Electrical   theory  of  matter,    2ooff. 

universe      temporal      according      to, 
^      215 

Electricity,    negative    element   in,    210 
positive   element   in,    2iiff. 
viewed    as   material    in    nature,    214 
Electron,  of  beta  rays,  202 

number  and  size,  202,  253,  254 

nature    of,     209f¥.,    253 

alike    in    all    substances,    209,     210, 

255 
not    a   constant   quantity,    210 
and  electricity,   2iofF.,  254ff. 
and   the    ether,    212,    213 
viewed  as  material,   214 
and  the  "Periodic  Law,"  249 
like     infinitesimal     star     of     atomic 

world,    252 
revolutions   of,    252flF. 
an  element  of  all  matter,   255 
energy    of,    260 
velocity  of,   261 
Electronic  theory  of  electricity,  21  off., 

245.    254 
Elements,    chemical,    193,    243 
radioactive,    205 
disintegration    of  all,    208 
sarne  in  earth  and  stars,  245 
their    constitution    an    evidence    of 

design,    246 
"Periodic   Law"    of,    247ff. 
forecast  by  "Periodic  Law,"  248 
Emanation,   theory  of,    17,   22.    194 
End,  universe  to  have  an,   i68ff.,   187, 

188,    220,    223ff.,    231,    232 
Energy,     vast,     in     universe,     law     of 

conservation  of,    58ff. 
not   from   matter,    61 
dissipation     and     transmutation     of, 

i69ff. 
ceaseless   adjustment   of,    169 
finite  in   amount,    169,    178 
tendency    toward    equalization,     170 
law  of  conservation  questioned  and 

examined,    171,    i73fF.;     disproved, 

176,   215 
real   definition  of, _  174,   175 
not  an  entity  in  itself,   175 
potential,    176 
primal   source  of,    177 
relation    to    matter,    177,    213,    220, 

223fTf.,    231,    255 
in    radium.    204,    261 
intra-atomic,    221,    260 
ultimately    not    conserved,    176,    215 
relation   to   the   ether,    225 
an   evidence   of   design,    259ff. 
of  hydrogen   molecules,    259 
in   chemical   union,   259 
vast  latent,^  260 
of  electronic  motions,  260 
Energy,    life^  and   mind,    according  to 

materialism,   36 


3o8 


Index 


Entities,      transcendent,      not     within 
sphere    of    consciousness   and    ex- 
perience,   289 
not  objects  of  scientific  search,   291 
Entrophy,    169 
Equation  of  universe,  33 

God-factor  necessary,   33 
Equilibrium,   tendency  toward,    170 
Erwin,   Marion,  on  light  interference, 

on    supposed    other    universes,    146, 

147 

on   unlimited   number   of   stars,    157 

on  matter  and  space,    158 

on    granular    nature    of    electricity, 
212 
Eternity  of  universe,  Haeckel  on,  22, 
75.   7(>,   loi 

Arrhenius  on,    16 

Bickerton    on,    16 

Saleeby    on,    17 

Plate   on,    57 

Smith   on,    76 

Biichner  on,   76 

Soddy  on,    184 

Martin   on,    184 
Ether,    by   nature    finite,    161,    221 

as   realm   of  energy,    186 

and     the     electron,     212,     213 

a  necessary  postulation,   216 

nature    of,    2i6ff. 

theory  of  matter,  2i6ff. 

theories  of,   217,   221 

granular,   217,   221 

and    wireless   telegraphy,    217,    264 

density    of,    219,    222 

universe      temporal      according      to 
ether   theory,    220 

the    basis    for    gravitation,    221 

relation   to    energy,    225 

monism's  creative  divinity,   225 

theory     of,      monism's     article     of 
faith,  227 

waves,    263  ff. 

and  matter  correlated,   266 
Etheric   nature   of   matter,   219 
Etheron,  219,  222;   size  of,   222 

not  a  constant  quantity,   224 

the  possibly  ultimate  element  of  all 
matter,  255 
Euclidean  space,   i62ff. 
Events,  all,   connected,   89!?. 
Evolution,   as  creation,    i6ff. 

no    eternal,    possible,    I78ff. 

limits  of,   an   evidence  of  temporal- 
ity,   179  ,      ,       ,     . 

incompleteness  a   proof   of  a  begin- 
ning,  180 

does  not  eliminate  necessity  of  God, 
182,  271 

theory  of   cyclic,    183!?. 

no    cyclic,    eternal,     184 

not  possible  to  an  infinite,  234 

an  evidence  of  finiteness,   234 

no,   without  involution,    235 

a  possible   modus   operandi,   295 

must  not  eclipse  God,  295 


Existence,  not  limitcu  oy  our  concep- 

ti9ns,  274 
Experience  and  consciousness  not  the 

measure  of  reality,  25,  289ff. 
Explosive,   the   earth   a   potential,    261 
Extent      of      universe,      117,       I22ff., 

125 

for  star  cross-sections  to  equal  stars, 

i28ff.,    132 
to    make    heaven    blaze    with    light, 

I28ff.,    I36ff. 
for    projection    of    stars    to    cover 

celestial   sphere,    i36ff. 
for    heaven    to    blaze,    from    actual 

light    received,    141,    143 
determined      from     light     received, 

144 
Eye,  adapted  to  ether  waves,  266 

Faculties,     not    sufficient    to     exhaust 

reality,   291 
Faith,    in    God,    correlated    with    real- 
ity,   297  ?i. 
necessary    in    science,    298ff. 
the   highway  to  knowledge,   298 
Faraday,    Michael,    theory    as   to    com- 
mon  origin   of   forces,    89 
on    nature    of    matter,    195 
Fatalism    of   materialism,    52 
Father,  God  as,  275 
Fichte,     conception     of     matter,     190, 

195 

Finite,    the    physical    universe    proved 
to  be,   75flf.,   looflf.,   i28ff.,    144 

any    multiplication    of    numbers    or 
masses  finite,    154 

matter  proved,    160 

ether,    161,   221 

matter   plus  ether,    161,   223 

occupied   space,    162 

any   entity    composed   of   parts,    165 

space,    166 

the,     necessarily     dependent,     56ff., 
166 
'First     Cause,      necessarily     a     unity, 

59ff- 

the   only   real   cause,    83 

a     necessary     postulate     of     reason, 
84 

deductions    as    to    the,    87 

cannot  get  away   from,   88ff. 

partially  knowable,   88 

a  supreme  Personality,   90 

all   energy   from  the,    92 

see  God  of  Scripture  and  also  Per- 
sonality 
Fiske,    John,    on    transcendent    origin 
of  soul,    66 

on     temporal     nature    of     universe, 
179,    180 

on  design   in  organisms,   241 

on    secondary    causes,    273 
Flint,    Robert,    on    limitations    of    sci- 
ence, 287 
Foot    prints,    tracing    Creator's,     106, 

249,   273,   292,   299 
Franklin,  theory  of  electricity,  210 


Index 


309 


Freedom,    aosolute   in   creative    Deity, 

236 
Feuerbach,    atheism   of,    31 

Gallium,  discovery  of,  248 

Gamma    rays,    203 flf. 
relation  to  X-rays,  203 

Gas,  Avogadro's  law  of  pressure,  251 

Genealogy   of  lead,    205flf. 

Generations  of  radium  family,  205 ff. 

Gerber,    on    velocity    of    gravitational 
action,  80 

Germanium,    discovery   of,    248 

Gleditch,  Ellen,   on  half-life  period  of 
radium,   207 

God  of  Scriptures,  unconditioned,  21 
His  existence  certain,  54,  98,  167 
identical  with  ultimate  Cause  of 
universe,  167,  225,  274,  286,  303 
His  methods  transcendent,  282 
existence  implied  in  Scripture,  282 
absence    of    miraculous   as  evidence 

for,   285 
science  as  witness  for,  29  iff.,  297 
the  centre  of  reality  and  truth,  294 

God-factor,    necessary   for   equation  of 
universe,    33 

God-instinct,    universal,    7iff. 

Graetz,   on   density   of  ether,   219 

Granular,    matter,    i54ff.,    192,    212 
ether,    217,    221 

Gravitation,    as    evidence     for    finite- 
ness,   79 
action   not   instantaneous,    79,    80 
aggregate,    121  ff. 
law     applied     to     critical     velocity, 

I23ff. 

ether  as  basis  of,  221 
Gray,   Asa,   on   secondary  causes,   284 

on  Darwinian  Theory,    3 
Grindstone  theory  of  Milky  Way  sys- 
tem,  III 
Groombridge,   1830  (star),  velocity  of, 

120,    121,    124 
Grove,   W.   R.,   on   everything  in  mo- 
tion,   250 
Guyot,    Arnold,    on    creation,    283 

Haeckel,   Ernst,    on   monistic   develop- 
ment,  16 
on   belief   and   science,    18 
his  assumptions,   18 
on  eternity  of  matter,  22,  23,  75  loi 
his   petitio    principii,    22,    23 
on    anthropomorphism,    24 
on   God,    freedom   and   immortality, 

31 

on  man's  place  in  universal  evolu- 
tion,   37 

on  life   and  conservation,   40 

a   deter minist,    52 

on   conservation   of  substance,   61 

on  origin  of  life  and  mind,  62 

on  infinite  and  eternal  universe,  75, 
76,    lOI 

on  identity  of  matter  and   energy, 

214 


Haeckel,    Ernst,    on   nature   of    ether, 
2i7flF. 

on  ether  as  creative  divinity,  225 ff. 
denies  design  in  nature,   235 
on    unconscious  cell-souls,    240 
necessity   of   God,    278 
Hamilton,     Sir     William,     theory     of 
creation,   17,  21,  22 
his    fallacy,    21,    22 
on   creation  and   the   Absolute,    93, 

9^  •  r     . 

on    conception    of   time    and    space, 

100 

on  universe  as  a  finite  entity,   103 

Harris,    Frank, 

on    multidimensional    universe    and 

the    source    of    energy,    91 

Harvey,    dictum   as  to   origin  of   life, 

65 
Heat,   mechanical   theory   of,    168 

total  in  universe  finite,  169,  187 
Heaviside,  Oliver,  on  inertia,  210 
Helium    atoms,    of    alpha    rays,    202, 

205,  206 
Helmholtz,   theory   of   extra-terrestrial 

origin  of  life,    42,    43 
Hercules,  near  apex  of  sun's  way,  119 
Hertz,    Heinrich,    on  nature   of    ether, 

216 
Heydweiler,    on   matter    as  a   variable 

quantity,   213 
History,    the    scaffolding    of    Revela- 
tion, 282 
Hobbes,  theory  of  matter,   197 
Humboldt,     Alexander,     on     ultimate 

origin,  293 
Huxley,    Thomas,    on    origin    of    life 

and  mind,   62 
on   nature    of   matter,    195 
on    organizing   power,    240 
on    limitations    of    Imowledge,     274 
Hylozoism,    240 

Idealism,    191 

Immanence,   Divine,   284 
illustrated   by   miracles,    10 
special,    234,    272,    273 

Incarnation,    the,   9,   268 

Inertia,   not   a  constant  quantity,   210 

Infinite,  an,  motionless,   122 

numbers  and  masses  cannot  consti- 
tute   an,     i54ff. 
series,    156 

matter   not,    157,    160 
not  composed  of  parts,  165 
revolving  universe  not,   198 
no  development  to  an,  possible,   234 

Infinitesimal   beings,   man's  limitations 
illustrated,   262,   295ff. 

Inorganic     nature,     materialism's     ex- 
planation inadequate,  28ff. 
design  in,   242ff. 

Interference    of    light,    objection    an- 
swered,  14s 

Intrinsic    or   intra-atomic    energy,    260 

Involution  and  evolution,   235 

Ions,    mass   of,    211 


3IO 


Index 


Janet,  design  and  final  causes,  240 
Jesus,  method  of  raising  Lazarus,  237 
and  the   philosopher,   278 

Kent,      Immanuel,      modification      of 
views,    72 
driven   to   First   Cause,    84 
on    finite    or    infinite   universe,    loi 
en  space,   157 
on  phenomena,    189 
Kapteyn,  J.   C,   on   motions  of  stars, 
107 
on  distribution  of  stars,    iii 
Kaufmann,   on  variation  of  mass,   210 
Kelvin,     Lord     (Sir    William    Thomp- 
son),    on    extra-terrestrial    origin 
of  life,   42,   43 
against    spontaneous    generation,    47 
on  science  and   creative  power,   68 
on    universe    a    finite    entity,     102, 

125,    126 
on   stellar  velocities,    124,    125 
theory    of    matter,    197 
on  density  of  ether,  219 
Kepler,    prayer   of,    302 
Kerner,    on    vital    force,    240 
Knowable    and    unknowable,    meaning 

of,   86 
Knowledge,    limitations    of,    25,    274, 

290,  291 
Kuhns,    Oscar,    on    man    as    a    micro- 
cosm,   72 

Laborde,   on   heat   of   radium,    204 
Lamarck,     on     potentiality    in    organ- 
isms,  241 
Lambert,    on    central    sun,     105 
Language,  limitations  of,   24ff. 
Laplace,    Celestial   Mechanics   without 
God,     30 
a    determinist,    52 
on   velocity   of   gravitational   action, 

r       79 

Larmor,   on   electron,    213 

Lavoisier,   A.  L.,  law  of  conservation 

of  matter,   57 
Law,   not   an   evidence  of   eternity  of 
universe,  59 

design  in,  242 

motion  according  to  fixed,  250 

versus  chance,   26gS. 

not   a  cause,    27off. 

Creator     not     limited    by     physical, 
272 
Law-Giver,  somewhere  on  throne,   268 
Lazarus,   method   in  raising  of,   237 
Lead,  genealogy  of,  205,  206 
LeBon,     Gustav,     no     need     of     God, 
32 

rejects   law   of  conservation,    174 

on   cyclic   matter,    220 

on    energy    of   chemical    union,    260 

on    electrical    potential,    261 

on   energy   of  cathode   particle,   261 
LeConte,  Joseph,  on  philosophic  dual- 
ism,  65 
Leucippus,  on  atomic  theory,  192 


Liebig,     against     spontaneous    genera- 
tion,  47 
Life,     materialism's     explanation     of, 

Spencer's    definition    of,    36 

more  than   matter,    39 

not    a    form    of    energy,    40 

transcendent    nature    of,    40 

physical   explanation   and    Deity,    42 

extra-terrestrial   origin   theory,    42!?. 

spontaneous  generation  of,  dis- 
proved,   47ff, 

not    from   matter,    61 

from   a   spiritual   source,    67^. 
Light,    stellar,    an    evidence    of    finite- 
ness,    i26ff. 

principle  of  light  evidence,    128 

a  demonstration,    i28ff.,    144 

number  of  stars  and  extent  of  uni- 
verse necessary,  to  blaze,  i28ff., 
132 

amount  of  light  received  from  stars 
and  sun,    141 

supposed  interference  of,    145 

pressure   of,   43  ff.,   217 

cause  of,   263 

velocity    of,    263 

waves   of  ether  and  of,   263^. 
Limitation,      of      human      conception, 
igff.,   96 

of    language,    24ff. 

of     knowledge,     26,     293 

to    the    Absolute   no,    95ff. 

of  physical    science,    287 

man's,    illustrated,   289!?. 
Livingstone,     David,     universality     of 

belief   in   God,    72 
Locke,     John,     conception     of    matter, 

190,    19s 
Lodge,   Sir  Oliver,  on  life,  48 

on    spontaneous    generation,    48 

on    living    organism,    51 

a   dualist,    65 

on    inertia,    210 
» on   electron,    213,    253 

on  conservation  of  matter,  230 

on    design,    235,    239 

on  secondary  causes,  273 

on  conservation  and  Deity,  284 

on  human  speculation,   296 
Loeb,   Jacques,   theory  of  life,   41 

on   spontaneous  generation,  47 
Lombroso,  Cesare,  a  dualist,  65 
Lotze,   conception  of  matter,    190 
Lucretius,    on   atomic  theory,    192 
Lyra,   at  apex   of  sun's  way,    1 19 

Mach,  Ernst,  on  existence  of  the  soul, 
64 

McKendnck,    a   dualist,    66 

Maedler,   on   central   sun,    105 

Magnetons,  253 

Magnitudes,   ratio  of  stars  for  succes- 
sive,  112 

Man,   a  microcosm,   72,   73 

littleness  and  gfreatness  of,  iS3ff., 
268 


Index 


3" 


Man,   as  key  to   universe,   275 
his  place  in  natural  world,  275 
his  place  in  spiritual   world,  276 
a   comparatively   infinitesimal   being, 
296 
Mansel,   Dean,  on  First  Cause,  85 

on  the   Absolute  as  cause,  94 
Martin,  Geoffrey,  on  origin  of  thought 
and   consciousness,    67 
on    cyclic   evolution,    184 
on      disintegration      of      radioactive 
substances,  205 
Martineau,    James,    on    Spencer's    fal- 
lacies, 86 
Mass,    a   variable   quantity,    210,    213, 

224 
Materialism,    i8 

explanation   of   universe,    28ff. 
primary    assumption,     28,    29 
method  and  spirit  anti-theistic,  29ff. 
premises  matters   of  scientiiic  faith, 

32 

questions  unanswered  by  it,  34 

concessions,    35^ 

necessary    fatalism,    52 

determinism    of,    52 
Materialists,    as    determinists,    52 
Mathematics,    use  of,    12 
Matter,     not     co-eternal     with     spirit, 

55 
alone    not    eternal,    s6ff.,    70 
law    of   conservation   of,    S7ff. 
not   the   cause   of  energy,    life   and 

mind,    61 
more   than,    in   universe,   64ff. 
inadequate   as  a  cause,    65 
granular     in     nature,      I54ff.,      192, 

212 
aggregate,    finite,    i54ff.,    160 
less   than   space,    157 
compared  with  space,    isSff. 
relation    to    energy,    177,    213,    220, 

223ff.,   231,   25s 
not  eternal,   182,  232 
temporal   by   nature,    i89ff. 
unknown  directly,    189,   190 
definition    difficult,     190 
idealistic  conception  of,    190 
atomic   or    particle   theory,    i92ff. 
centre-of- force  theory,    i95ff. 
vortex-atom    theory,    i97ff. 
electrical  theory,    20off. 
"radiant,"  203,  218 
ultimately     not     conserved,      205ff., 

213,  220,   224,   231,   255 
ether    theory    of,    2i6ff. 
states  of,    218,   219 
etheric  nature  of,  219 
cyclic   nature   of,    221 
monelectronic        or        monetheronic 

constitution,    256 
and   ether    correlated,    266 
Mayer,    Robert,    law    of    conservation 

of  energy,  58 
Means,   Creator's  use  of,   denied,   236 
Mechanists   rare    among    philosophers, 

39 


Melotte,  on  fainter  stars,   112 
Mendeleef,     on     granular     nature    of 

ether,  217 
on  "Periodic  Law,"   248 
Mercury,    80 
Meyer,    Lothar,    on  size  of  molecules, 

244 
on   properties  of   elements,   247 
Meyers,  Frederic,  on  relation  between 

physical    and    spiritual    universes, 

.    91 

Microscope,  power  of,   245,   254 
Milky    Way    system,    104 

described,    iiiff. 

grindstone    theory,     in 
Mill,  John  Stuart,  definition  of  cause, 

83 
theory  of  matter,    195 
denies     Creator's     use     of     means, 

236 
on  design,   236ff. 
concession  as  to   design,   246 
Milton,     John,     theory     of     creation, 

.17 
Mmd,    conditioned    nature,     I9ff.,    96, 
289ff.,    293ff. 
sphere  limited,   20 
materialism's    explanation,    36 
not    from    matter,    61 
from   spiritual    source,    67 ff. 
the   finite,    and   the    finite   universe, 
correlated,   156 
Miniature   universe,    atoms   and    mole- 
cules  as,    252,    257ff, ;    illustrated, 
256ff.,  262 
Miracle,   definition,    10 

fundamental   or  primal,    10 
absence     of,     as    evidence    for    un- 
changing God,   285 
Mivart,   St.  George,  on  origin  of  soul 
and  body,   68 
on  First  Cause,   90 
on    design    in   organisms,    241 
on  secondary  causes,   273 
on  transcendence  of  God's  methods, 
282 
Modus   operandi,   law   as  a,   269 

secondary    causes   as,    272 
Molecules,  243 

their     structure     and     design,     244, 

.  •2S7ff- 
size    of,    244 
in   ceaseless  motion,    250 
like    miniature    universe,    257ff. 
Moleschott,     on    origin     of     life    and 

mind,    62 
Monelectronic     constitution     of     mat- 
ter, 256 
Monism,    creative    divinity    of,    22s  ff. 
Monistic   development,    16     _ 
Moore,    Benjamin,    on   infinite    Intelli- 
gence, 268 
Motion    of    stars,    i04ff. 
proper,    107,    119 
parallactic,    118 
real,    119 
primal,   121 


^12 


Index 


Motions  of  molecules  and  atoms,  250, 

261 
Multidimensional  space,   finite,    i64ff. 

Napoleon,   on   Laplace's   Celestial  Me- 
chanics, 30 
Natural   selection,   238 
Nature,    uniformity    of,    89 
deification    of,    30 
not    a    living    organism,    soff. 
unity  of,  89,  245 
correlation   of,   with  mind,    156 
in      agreement      with      Revelation, 
28sff.  .   .        ^ 

and   Revelation,   common   origin   of, 
3oiff. 
Nebulae,   not  other  universes,    149 
Nebular   hypothesis,   only   theory,    30 
Necessity,     term     not     applicable     to 
Deity,    236ff. 
doctrine   of,   self-contradictory,   52ff. 
Negative   electricity,    element   of,    210 

granular  nature,  2ioff. 
Newcomb,    Simon,    on    extent   of   uni- 
verse,  102,   122,  126 
on  apex  of  sun's  way,   107 
on  light   ratios,    113 
on  critical   velocity,    I2iff. 
on  stellar   motions,    122 
on  light  from  stars  and  sun,   141 
on  multidimensional    space,    164 
on  history   of   a   star,    181 
on  duration    of   matter,    231 
Newlands,    John,    on    arrangement    of 

elements,   247 
Newton,    Sir    Isaac,    on    nature    as    a 

living   organism,    51 
Newtonium,     discovery     of     element, 

forecast,  248 
Non-Euclidean   geometry,    i63fF. 
space  finite  according  to,    164 

Objections    answered    as    to    relation 

of  Creator,   93ff. 
as  to  potentiality      of      space      and 

time,   96,    10 1 
as    to     chance,     97 
as  to  law,   97 
as  to  spirit's     action    upon    matter, 

as  to  light    interference,     145 
as  to  design   in   nature,   244ff. 
Organic    nature,    materialism's    expla- 
nation  as  to,    35ff. 
materialism's   explanation   as  to   life 
and  mind,   36 
Organism,     life-pervaded,     and    inani- 
mate crystallization,  38 
theory   of   nature   as  a  living,    soff. 
design    in    living,    239ff, 
Origin   of   universe,   theories  of,    15  ff. 
Rig- Veda  on,    15 

according  to  philosophic  science,    16 
science  not   concerned  with,    292/?. 
Ostwald,    William,    on    energy   versus 

matter,   215 
Owen,   on  design  in  organisms,   241 


Paley,  argument  for  desigii,  238,  ;S39 
Panentheism,    19 
Panextheism,   19 
Panspermia,    42 ff. 

theory   inadequate,   45  ff. 
Pantheism,   18 

cannot    stand    with    atomic    theory, 
194 
Paralysis,   impending  in   nature,    168 
Parsec,    use    of,    117,    129 
Parson,  A.  L.,  on  structure  of  atom, 

252 
Pasteur,    rejects    spontaneous    genera- 
tion,  47 
Penetration  of  rays  of  radium,   203 
"Periodic  Law,"  247^. 

an  evidence  of  design,   247,  249 
and   undiscovered   elements,    248 
and  arrangements  of  electrons,   249 
Perrin,  on  size  of  molecules,  244 
Personality,   creation  by  a,   9off.,   145, 
156,   167,  229,  249,  259,  269,  273, 
288,  303 
necessitated  by  latest   science,   259 
identical     with    God    of    Scripture, 
225,   274,   286,   303 
Phenomena,     Kantian    conception    of, 

189 
Philosopher   and  boatman,    illustrating 

religion  and  science,   299ff. 
Philosopher's    stone,    256 
Philosophers  not  mechanists,   39 
Philosophy,   sphere  of,   293 
relation   of   science   to,    293 
a   witness   for  truth,    297 
Pickering,   E.   C,  on  Milky  Way,   112 
Pitchblende,   a  source  of  radium,   201 
Plate,     Professor,     concession     as     to 
Law-Giver,    35 
on  eternity   of   matter,    57 
Plato,    traditional    definition    of    man, 
36 
conception   of   matter,    190 
Pleasure  and  pain,  design  in,  240 
Pleiades,   105,    148 

Poincare,    M.    Henri,    on    velocity    of 
gravitational   action,    79 
on    non-Euclidean    geometry,     i63flF. 
rejects   law    of   conservation,    174 
on  so-called  chance,  270 
Pope,   Alexander,   on  nature  as  living 

organism,  51 
Positive  electrical  element,   21  iff. 

corpuscular  in  nature,  212 
Postulates,    three,    as    to    original    ex- 
istence,   ssff. 
two      fundamental,      of      Scripture, 
28off. 
Prayer   of  Kepler,    302 
Premises,    of    materialism,    _32ff. 

unproved,  cause  of  conflict,   295 
Pressure,    of   light,    43ff.,    217 

of  ether,  43ff.,  217,  222 
Printing  press,   illustration,    295 
Problem  of  three  bodies,   i63ff. 
"Protyle,"    supposed    evolution    from 
249 


Index 


313 


Prout,  on  hydrogen  as  basic  element, 

247 
Purpose  of  creation,   274 
spiritual    in    nature,    275 
Purpose   of    Scripture,    281 
Pyknatoms,    219 

Questions    unanswerable   by   material- 
ism, 34 

"Radiant"   matter,    203,    218 
Radioactivity,     201 

cause  of,  204 
Radium,   steps  in  discovery   of,   20off. 
rays   of,    203 

generations   of   family,    205  ff. 
Ramsay,    Sir    William,    on   generations 
of  radium  family,   205 
on  decomposition  of  all  elements,  208 
Ranyard,  A.  Cowper,  on  light  of  stars, 

127 
Rays,   Roentgen  or  X-,   200 
nature  of  X-rays,   201 
of  radium,   202 
alpha,  202;  beta,  202 
gamma,    203;    delta,   203 
recoil,    203 
Reality,    knowledge    not    the    measure 
of,   25,   274,    29off. 
not  limited  to  experience   and  con- 
sciousness,  25,   289ff. 
transcendent,    not    object    of    scien- 
tific  search,    291 
ultimately  unattainable,  297 
Reason  of  God,  reflected  in  man  and 

nature,  297 
Reason  of  man,  limitation  and  sphere 
of,  26 
correlated  with  reality,  297 
Recoil   rays,    203 
Reiman,     on    non-Euclidean     systems, 

164 
Reinke,  a  believer,  in  later  life,   73 
Relation,   not  a  limitation  of  the  Ab- 
solute,   94if.,   237ff. 
Religion   and   science,    relative   impor- 
tance, 299 
illustrated,  299ff. 

faith  and  knowledge   in  both,   301 
Revelation,     in    agreement    with    na- 
ture,  286 
no     real     conflict     between     science 

and,   287fif. 
sphere    of,    different    from    that    of 

science,   291 
steps  back  of  secondary  causes,  292 
from    same   source    as    nature,    301, 
302 
Revolution,    of  stars,   an  evidence  of 
finiteness,    io8ff. 
of  electrons,    252ff.,   257ff. 
Reynolds,  on  density  of  ether,  222 
Richter,    H.    E.,    theory    of    extra-ter- 
restrial  origin   of   life,    42 
Rig- Veda,    theory    of    origin    of    uni- 
verse,  1 5 
Roentgen,    discovery  of   X-rays,   200 


Russell,    Bertrand,    on    faith   as   basis 

of  knowledge,    298 
Rutherford,  on  rays  of  radium,  202 
on    disintegration,    205 
on    generations    of    radium    family, 

205,  207 
on  half-life  period,  207 
on  positive  nucleus,  252 

Sabatier,    M.,    rejects    law    of   conser- 
vation,  174 
Saleeby.   on   eternity   of   universe,    17 
Scaffolding,     physical     universe,      for 
spiritual   creation,    275 
human    history,    for    Scripture,   282 
Scandium,   discovery  of,   248 
Schafer,   E.    A.,   on  natural  origin  of 

life,   48,  49 
Schopenhauer,  atheism  of,  31 
Schwarzschild,   on   radiation   pressure, 

44 
Science,  use  of  theories  of,    11 

no    conflict    between    religion    and, 
167,  287 

theories    outgrown,    173 

as  a  witness  for  God,   288,   302 

sphere    of,    different    from    that    of 
Revelation,   291 

not    concerned    with    origin    of    na- 
ture,   292ff. 

deals    only    with    secondary    causes, 
292 

relation   to   philosophy,    293 

man's  place  in,  295 

a  witness  for  truth,   297 

faith  necessary  in,    298ff. 

and    religion,     relative    importance, 
299ff. 

not  all   of  knowledge,   301 
Scientific   faith,    materialism's,   32 
Scientists,  physical,  not  all  mechanists, 

39 

can  be  devoutly  Christian,  292,  298, 
302 
Scriptures,     a     confirmation     of     evi- 
dence from  nature,  277 

testimony  on  creation  ex  nihilo,  279 

two    fundamental   postulates,   28off. 

purpose  of,   281 

in  agreement  with   nature,   285  ff. 
Secondary  causes,  law  of,   illustrated, 
81 

all   series  of,   finite,   83 

linked  together  in  providence,  93 

the  media  of  Deity,  98 

use   of,    27 iff.,   279 

First  Cause   present  in   all,    272 

as  a  modus  operandi,   272^ 
Seeliger,   on  gravitation  as  invariable, 

80 
Sex,    design   in,   240,   270 
Shakespeare,    on  man's  greatness,    154 

on  temporal  universe,    180 
Size,  of  molecules  and  atoms,  244,  245 

of    electrons,    202,    2S3ff. 
Skepticism,    scientific,    as    to    spiritual 
entities,  295 


314 


Index 


Smith,    Orlando    J.,    on    eternal    uni- 
verse, 76 
Snyder,   Carl,  on  universe  as  a  finite 
entity,    102 
on    mystery    of    creation,    293 
Soddy,    Frederick,    on   law   of   conser- 
vation, 63 
on  cyclic    evolution,    184 
on   disintegration,    205,    208 
on    generations    of    radium    family, 

20  s 
on    energy   of   ions,    261 
Soul,   Mach  on  existence  of,   64 

a    spiritual   entity,   288 
Space,   objection   answered,   96,    loi 
correlated  with  time,   135 
greater  in  extent  than  matter,    157 
compared   with  matter,    isSflf. 
inhabited  by  one  star,   159 
extent  of,    i6ofif. 

occupied  by   stars,   not  infinite,    161 
occupied   by    matter    and    ether    not 

infinite,    161 
in   its  totality   finite,    162 
Euclidean     three-dimensional,      162 
non-Euclidean  multidimensional, 

164 
finite     according    to     non-Euclidean 

geometry,    164,    165 
three-dimensional,    finite,    166 
Spectroscope,    118,    193 
Spectrum,   testimony  as  to  unity,    245 
light,     263;     bolometer,     264;     elec- 
trical,   264 
of   light    and    color,    not   the    whole 
record,   290 
Spencer,    Herbert,    definition    of    life, 
36 
on   origin   of  life  and  mind,   62 
on     inability     to     explain     life     and 

mind,  67 
driven    to    Unconditioned,    85 ;    fal- 
lacy  as  to   Unconditioned,   86 
his    scientific    faith,    172;    confession 

as  to  end   of  nature,    170,    172 
on  limitations  of  evolution,    179;  on 
ether      possessing      consciousness, 
226 
on  atheistic  theory,   286 
Spheres   of    science   and   religion,    dif- 
ferent,   291,   292 
Spirit  alone  eternal,   7oflf. 
Spiritual    universe,    91,    275 
Spontaneous     generation,     theory     of, 
disproved,    47ff. 
if   true,    a   Deity   still    necessary,    49 
Stars,    motions    of,     104!?.;    drifts    of, 
107 
proper  motions  of,    107,   119 
Vega    and     delta     Lyrae,     apex    of 

sun's  way,    107,   108,    119 
number   of,    ii6ff.,    123 
distribution    of,    and   extent   of  uni- 
verse,  III,   117,   130 
motion   and   finiteness,    ii8ff. 
parallactic  motions,    118;   radial,    119 
real,    119;   primal,    121 


Stars,     Arcturus     and     1830     Groom- 
bridge,   120,  121,  124 
light   of,   an   evidence   of  -finiteness, 

I26ff. 

demonstration     of     finiteness     from 

light  of,    i28fF, 
number     necessary     to     hlaze     with 

light,    i28ff. 
amount  of  light  received,    141 
extent    of    universe    from    light    re- 
ceived from,   144 
Pleiades,    148 

clusters  of,  not  other  universes,   148 
space  inhabited  by,   159 
finite   in   number,    160 
Stellar    consolidation,    theory    of,    171 
Stewart,    Alfred    W.,    on    cyclic    uni- 
verse,   184 
Stewart,    Balfour,    a    dualist,    65 

theory  as  to  relation  between  physi- 
cal   and    spiritual   universes,    91 
Stoney,   Johnstone,   on   elements  light- 
er  than   hydrogen,    248 
Structure,  of  universe  an  evidence  of 
finiteness,  loSflF. 
of   atoms,    21  iff.,    252fF. 
Sun,   journey   through   space,    107 
velocity  of  motion,    107,    119 
amount  of  light   from,    141 
Survival  of  fittest,   238 

Table   of   generations  of   radium   fam- 
ily, 206 
Tait,    Peter    Guthrie,    a    dualist,    65 
theory  as  to  relation  between  physi- 
cal   and    spiritual   universes,    91 
on   transmutation   of   energy,    170 
Telegraphy,    wireless,    217,    264 
Teleology,    not   destroyed   by    Darwin- 
ian theory,  241 
and  pleasure  and   pain,   240 
see   design 
Telescope,    power  of,    ii4ff. 
Temporal,    the   universe    shown   to  be, 
»    75 
universe    by   nature,    168,    179,    187, 

188,    213,    231,    255 
matter   by    nature,    i89ff. 
both  matter  and  ether,   223 
Tennyson,    Lord,    on   individuality,    64 
Theism,    240,    242 
Theories,   of   creation,    isff. 

of  science,    use  of,    11 
Thompson,     Sir    William     (Lord    Kel- 
vin),  theory  of  matter,    197 
on    decomposition    of    all    elements, 

208 
on   design   in  nature,   239 
Thomson,     Sir     J.     J.,     on     electron, 
209ff.,    215 
on    atomic    energy,    261 
Thought,     not     from     physical     proc- 
esses, 67 
Tiele.    C.    P.,    on    universality    of    re- 
ligion,   yz 
Time,    correlated    with    space,    135 
objection  answered,  96,  loi 


Index 


315 


Transcendent  entities,    288ff. 

cannot  affect  physical  sensorium,  289 

not  objects  of  scientific  search,  291 
Transmutation,    of   energy,    i69ff. 

of  elements,    difficulty   of,   256 
Tyndall,     John,     against     spontaneous 
generation,   47 

on  origin  of  consciousness,  66 

Ultramicroscope,    power    of,    245,    254 
Unconditioned,    God,    21 

the,    2 iff. 
Uniformity   of  nature,    89,   295 
Union,    law    of   chemical,    246 

"Periodic    Law,"    247 
Unitary    system,    theory    of    universe 
as  a  revolving,    io4ff. 

no   revolution   of   an   infinite,    198 
Unity   of  universe,   233ff.,   245 

of  constitution,    193 

of    design    and    purpose,    234 
Universe,    conditioned,    20 

had    a    beginning,     70,     180,     i86ff., 

232,      279,     282ff. 

a   finite    and  temporal    entity,    75 ff., 

looff. 
upper   cosmic  and   nether   infinitesi- 
mal,  87 
spiritual,   91,  275S. 
proved  a  creature,  99 
finite  as  a  unitary  system,    I03ff. 
theory    of    revolving,    i04ff. 
finite    as   a   star   republic,    no 
extent  of,    117,    125 
motionless,   if  infinite,    122,    198 
proved    finite    from    light    of    stars, 

i28ff.,   i36ff. 
extent   of,    for    stars   to    equal    star 

cross-sections,    i28ff.,    132 
extent   of,    for  projections   to   cover 

celestial  sphere,   i36ff. 
extent    of,    to     blaze,     from    actual 

amount  of  light,   141,  i43ff. 
possibility  of,  beyond  ours,  147,  149, 

150,    152 
a    star-cluster    not    an    ulterior,    148 
a    nebula    not    an    ulterior,    149 
no    multiplication    of,    infinite,    151 
magnifying  the,  a  magnifying  of  its 

Creator,    152 
the  finite,   correlated  with  the  finite 

mind,   156 
of  matter,   finite,    160 
by  nature  temporal,  168,   i79ff.,  189, 

220,   223 
incomplete,    an    evidence    of    begin- 
ning,   180,    186 
no    number    of    repeating,    eternal, 

i83ff. 
temporal  by  nature  of  matter,  189 ff. 
temporal    according    to    theories    of 

matter,    192^,    I9sff,    i97ff,    20oflf, 

231 
temporal     as    to    both    matter    and 

ether,  223ff. 
a  perfect  mechanism,   233ff. 
unity  of,    233ff.,    245 


Universe,     atoms    and    molecules    like 
miniature,   252,   257ff. 
illustration  of  miniature,  256ff.,  262, 

295 
not      a      fortuitous     concourse      of 

atoms,   271 
the  scaffolding  of  the   spiritual  cre- 
ation,   27s 
Unknowable,    Spencer's    fallacy    as    to 

the,  86 
Uranium,    radioactivity    of   ore,    201 

Variable,   mass  or  matter  and  energy, 

210,    213,    220,    223ff.,    231 
V  ega  Lyrae,   apex  of  sun's  way,    107, 

108,    119 
Velocity,     an    evidence    of    finiteness, 
108,    126 
of  sun  through  space,   107,  119 
average,   of  stars,    119,    120 
of    Arcturus,    120,     121 
of  1830  Groombridge,   120,   121,    124 
critical,    12  iff. 
critical,     and     law     of     gravitation, 

123ff. 

of  rays  of  radium,   202ff. 
of    atoms   and    electrons,    260ft'. 
Virchow,    Rudolf,    a    believer,    in    ma- 

turer   life,   73 
Vogt,    J.    G.,    on    origin    of    life    and 
mind,  62 
on  etheric  nature   of  matter,   218 
on  cause   of  energy,   219 
Vortex-atom   theory   of    matter,    i97ff. 
Universe     temporal     according     to. 
i98ff. 

Wallace,    Alfred    R.,    on    transcendent 
nature    of   life,    40 
a   dualist,    65 

on  universe  as  a  finite  entity,   102 
on  design  in  organisms,  240,  241 
on  secondary  causes,    273 
Waves  of  ether  and  of  light,  263ff. 
Weber,    Alfred,    on    Will    as    ultimate 

cause,  229,  230 
Weir,    James,    on    closed    energy    cir- 
cuits,   58 
Western   philosophic   science,   on    eter- 
nity of  matter,  energy  and  life,  16 
Whetham,    on   relation   of   matter   and 

ether,    223 
Whittaker,    E.    J.,    theories    of    ether, 

216 
Will,    as   ultimate   cause,    80,    98,    187, 
229,    230,    259,   273 
back   of   all   vibration,    265 
Wilson,   G.   N.,  on  structure  of  atom, 

252 
Wireless  telegraphy,  ether  in,  217,  264 
Word,    testimony    of,    as    to    creation, 

277fi. 
Worlds,  other,   276 

Wright,    G.    Frederick,    Foreword    by, 
3.  4 
on   Genesis  and   science,    167 
on  secondary  causes,  273 


3i6 


Index 


Wright,   Thomas,   the  grindstone  the- 
ory,  III 

Wundt,   William  Max,   a  believer,   m 
later  life,  73 
on  ultimate  origins,   292 

X-rays,    discovery   of,    200 
nature  of,   20off. 
relation   to   gamma  rays,   203 

Young,  Charles,  on  supposed  universe- 
revoluticn,    108 


Young,     Charles,     on     universe    as    a 
star-system,   no 
on  gradual  decrease  of  star-distribu- 
tion,   113 
on    amount    of    light    received    from 

stars,    141 
on  star-clusters,    148 
on   nebulae,    149 
Young,    Thomas,   on   the   ether,   217 

Zero  of  temperature,   252 
Zsigmondy,   the   ultramicroscope,   245 


'"li'ira |[|?« lli'miJlliS?,!,  ,l""'"''>   Libraries 


1    1012   01197  0359 


:':';■;'! 


